Procedural Posture

Appellant employer challenged an order of the Superior Court of Marin County (California), which granted respondent employee’s motion to enter a judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement reached between the parties at a judicially supervised settlement conference in respondent’s action for wrongful termination and age discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12941.

Overview: www incorporate com

Respondent employee filed a complaint against appellant employer for wrongful termination and age discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12941. At a mandatory settlement conference, the parties reached an oral agreement and respondent filed a motion to have judgment entered according to the terms of the agreement on the grounds that appellant refused to comply. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement to which the parties orally stipulated at the judicially supervised conference, holding that the agreement was final and binding. On appeal, the court affirmed the entry of judgment, holding that there was substantial evidence of a binding oral agreement as to the material terms of the settlement to permit the trial court to enter judgment pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6. The court further held that the statute of frauds did not bar the enforcement of the settlement agreement under Cal. Civ. Code § 1642 because there was no concern for the prevention of fraud and perjury because the oral agreement was judicially supervised.

Outcome

The court affirmed the entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement in respondent employee’s action for wrongful termination and age discrimination, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that a binding settlement agreement was reached by the parties at a judicially supervised conference, and that the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of the agreement.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.