Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe

903 P.2d 375 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe

Oregon Court of Appeals
903 P.2d 375 (1995)

Facts

Jane Doe (defendant), a nurse with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (Kaiser) (plaintiff) sued Kaiser, its local affiliate, and a Kaiser doctor, Smith, claiming Smith had sexually harassed her. The parties agreed to mediation, and a conference was held on August 18, 1993, attended by Kaiser, Smith, their attorneys Eileen Drake and Christine Kitchel, Doe, Doe’s attorney Henry Kaplan, and the mediator. Kaiser’s attorneys informed Kaplan about some of Doe’s conduct for which she potentially could be disciplined. Kaplan shared this information with Doe. Later, the attorneys arrived at a proposed agreement that included a payment from Kaiser to Doe in exchange for her voluntary resignation. Doe requested a few days to consider, but Kaiser’s attorneys said the offer was good only for that day. Doe instructed Kaplan to wait a few hours and accept. Kaplan and Kaiser’s attorneys prepared a document containing the terms of the agreement, including the monetary settlement, Doe’s agreements to resign and not to reapply for employment, a confidentiality clause, and an arbitration provision. Kaplan informed Kaiser’s attorneys that he would tell them in a few hours whether Doe agreed to the terms, and if so, Kitchel was to draft the agreement. Kaplan later informed Kitchel that Doe accepted, and he told the mediator and Doe the case was settled. However, on August 20, Doe notified Kaplan that she declined to settle her claims, and on August 26, she informed him that she rescinded the verbal agreement, which she claimed had been made under extreme duress. On August 30, Kaplan notified Drake that Doe would not enter the agreement, and Kaiser sought a declaration that the parties had entered an enforceable oral agreement and specific enforcement or a judgment compelling arbitration. The trial court found in favor of Doe, holding that the agreement was not binding because Doe had not signed it. Kaiser appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Edmonds, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership