Gatto v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
2009 WL 3062316 (2009)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Cathalene Gatto (plaintiff) sued Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. (defendant), her former employer, in federal district court. At the time of the lawsuit, Gatto and Verizon were also involved in a separate arbitration action. The parties participated in mediation of the district-court case. Mediation ended with an offer by Verizon to settle the case for $25,000 in exchange for Gatto’s full release of all claims against Verizon as well as her agreement not to reapply with the company, not to disparage the company, and to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. Gatto rejected the offer and instructed her attorney, Holmes, to move forward with the lawsuit. Holmes subsequently communicated to Ryan, Verizon’s counsel, that Gatto had authorized him to settle the case for $50,000. Verizon authorized Ryan to settle the matter for $50,000 subject to the same terms specified in its previous offer. When Holmes informed Gatto that he had settled the case, she denied authorizing him to do so and objected to the requirement that she release her arbitration claim against Verizon. Gatto subsequently refused to sign a written settlement agreement. Verizon moved to enforce the settlement agreement, and Gatto moved to deny enforcement of the agreement. The district court held a hearing on the matter at which both Holmes and Gatto gave inconsistent testimony concerning their conflicting recollections of the settlement negotiations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conti, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.