Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-0538 (JDB), Civil Action No. 04-1240 (JDB).
June 30, 2005
ORDER
These consolidated actions involve the employment and eventual termination of plaintiff Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera, a utility worker at a cafeteria that defendant Sodexho Marriot Management Services ("Sodexho") operated for defendant Howard University ("Howard"). Plaintiff alleges that in the course of his employment he was subjected to a series of discriminatory and harassing acts, culminating in an incident in which he was fired after being accused of passing cafeteria food to his son, also a plaintiff in one case. Plaintiffs bring these actions against Sodexho and two of its employees (collectively, "the Sodexho defendants") and Howard and one of its employees (collectively, "the Howard defendants"), asserting claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin under Title VII, retaliation under Title VII, discrimination on the basis of disability under the American with Disabilities Act, and a variety of common law tort claims.
The Sodexho defendants have moved to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Mwabira-Simera, arguing that those claims are barred by a release agreement Mwabira-Simera signed a mere two weeks before he commenced this litigation. When Mwabira-Simera was terminated, his union filed a grievance against Sodexho challenging his termination. The grievance led to an arbitration proceeding, and during a break in the proceedings, the parties reached a settlement. According to the terms of the settlement agreement bearing Mwabira-Simera's signature, Sodexho agreed to reinstate Mwabira-Simera as a utility person without any loss of seniority, in exchange for which Mwabira-Simera agreed to "fully and finally resolve, settle and release" Sodexho and its employees "from any and all disputes and claims that were or could have been alleged in the grievance underlying" the arbitration. Def. Mot., Ex. 1, ¶ 2. The settlement agreement goes on to state that Mwabira-Simera agrees "to waive any and all claims for back pay, benefits, and any other economic damages through the date of his restatement." Id. ¶ 4. The settlement agreement is dated March 15, 2004. On April 1, 2004, plaintiffs Mwabira-Simera and Simera-Nindala filed this lawsuit.
The settlement agreement was also signed by a representative of Mwabira-Simera's union and an official of Sodexho.
Sodexho reinstated Mwabira-Simera on July 2, 2004. Decl. of Donna McCants ¶ 4.
Plaintiff Mwabira-Simera filed his second lawsuit in this Court on July 26, 2004. The Complaint in that suit made many of the same allegations against several of the same defendants, and also adds Marcus Worley as a new defendant. On September 9, 2004, the Court granted the parties' consent motion to consolidate the two cases.
The Court agrees that Mwabira-Simera's claims against the Sodexho defendants are foreclosed by the plain language of the settlement agreement, and therefore must be dismissed. The claims in the complaints in these actions either "were . . . alleged" in the union grievance (which involved a challenge to the termination of Mwabira-Simera) or "could have been alleged" in the union grievance (the form on which the union asserted its grievance even included spaces for allegations of harassment, discrimination, suspension, contract violation, job classification, among others, see Def. Mot., Ex. 2). Each of the claims is also one "for back pay, benefits, and any other economic damages through the date of his reinstatement." Mwabira-Simera therefore has waived and released each of his claims against the Sodexho defendants, and is barred from asserting them in the instant action.
This ruling does not apply to the claims of plaintiff John E. Simera-Nindala, or the claims against the Howard defendants, none of whom were parties to the settlement agreement.
Mwabira-Simera's various attempts to avoid the terms of the settlement agreement are unavailing. He suggests that releases of Title VII and ADA claims are void against public policy, but he does not cite any law for this proposition, and in fact releases of these claims are routinely enforced. See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 271 F. Supp. 2d 225, 228-29 (D.D.C. 2003);Morgan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 172 F. Supp. 2d 98, 106 (D.D.C. 2001). He also argues that the settlement agreement cannot be read to release his Title VII and ADA claims because the agreement does not specifically mention those claims. However, the law is clear that a broad and unambiguous release need not list every conceivable cause of action that might come within its terms. See Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2002) ("There is no obligation, however, under Title VII or federal common law, that a release must specify Title VII or federal causes of action to constitute a valid release of a Title VII claim.").
See also Pilon v. Univ. of Minn., 710 F.2d 466, 467-68 (8th Cir. 1983) (holding that a release of "any and all" claims "is clear and leaves no doubt that all claims potentially held by Pilon are waived," including the Title VII claims alleged in the case); Samman v. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Assocs., Inc., 577 F. Supp. 934, 934 (D.D.C. 1984) ("The court finds that plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred by the unambiguous language of the release: `Dr. Samman hereby releases . . . [defendants] from any and all claims, obligations and liabilities relating to Dr. Samman's employment with . . . [defendant].").
Plaintiff Mwabira-Simera's remaining arguments fare no better. Without any elaboration, he asserts that his attorney was deficient in advising him to sign the agreement. Even if he could muster some evidence for this charge (and he does not), it would not dissolve the release: "[W]hen a litigant voluntarily accepts an offer of settlement, either directly or indirectly through the duly authorized actions of his attorney, the integrity of the settlement cannot be attacked on the basis of inadequate representation of counsel." Petty v. Timken Corp., 849 F.2d 130, 133 (4th Cir. 1988). Finally, Mwabira-Simera argues that he chose not to make claims of harassment and other similar charges in his union grievance, and therefore should not be foreclosed from asserting those claims here. As indicated, this assertion misreads the agreement: the release bars MwabiraS-imera from bringing not only claims that "were . . . alleged" in the union grievance, but also claims that "could have been alleged" in that grievance, and there is no contention that he was unable to raise in the grievance each of the claims that he now asserts in his complaint.
Although he suggests that the Court should allow discovery into the scope of the agreement, he does not explain what sort of discovery he would want or what facts that discovery could hope to uncover that would shine any meaningful light on the unambiguous release in this case. See Cavaliere v. Lifespring, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13658, at *2 (D.D.C. 1989) (holding that "[d]iscovery was not necessary" to determine the enforceability of the release agreement in the case).
Plaintiff Mwabira-Simera signed the settlement agreement, was reinstated to his job as a result of the agreement, and now must honor the remaining terms of the agreement. For these reasons, the Sodexho defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Mwabira-Simera is GRANTED.
Because the Court grants in full the Sodexho defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Mwabira-Simera on the ground that they are foreclosed by the release agreement he signed, the Court does not find it necessary to reach the Sodexho defendants' argument that several of those claims are also barred under Rule 4(m) and the applicable statutes of limitations.