Arnaoudoff v. Tivity Health Incorporated, 2:23-cv-01510

Plaintiff Nancy Arnaoudoff, a former customer service representative for Tivity Health, alleged wrongful termination under the ADA after being denied accommodation for surgery recovery and was terminated in November 2020.
After receiving a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC, Arnaoudoff filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages for discrimination.
The parties engaged in settlement negotiations via email in August 2024, ultimately agreeing on a settlement amount of $57,671.80 and removal of certain contract clauses at Arnaoudoff's insistence.
Although Arnaoudoff refused to sign the final agreement and later demanded much higher compensation, Tivity moved to enforce the settlement, arguing a binding contract existed.
Magistrate Judge Bibles recommended enforcing the settlement; Arnaoudoff objected on several grounds including lack of legal counsel, lack of a signature, fairness, evidentiary issues, and adequacy of settlement amount.
The district court overruled Arnaoudoff’s objections, adopted the R&R fully, enforced the settlement, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability without Plaintiff's Legal Counsel	Lack of counsel made Plaintiff unable to consent knowingly/voluntarily.	Plaintiff chose to proceed pro se and adequately negotiated terms herself.	Status as pro se does not affect enforceability; no special treatment required.
Enforceability Without Signature	No binding agreement existed because the settlement was never signed.	Email exchanges, with Plaintiff's typed signature, are sufficient for a binding agreement.	Signature not required; written emails suffice under local rule and contract principles.
Fairness and Adequacy of Settlement Amount	The amount and terms were unfair and did not account for all damages suffered, including emotional harms.	Settlement exceeded one year’s lost wages and met all required ADA remedies.	"Fairness" not required for enforceability in private settlements; Plaintiff was adequately paid.
Relevance of "Me-Too" Evidence	New witness could prove discriminatory practices, supporting higher damages or better outcome.	Evidence would not be admissible or relevant to Plaintiff’s own ADA claims.	Such evidence not relevant or admissible absent strong similarities; objection overruled.

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants are not entitled to special treatment in civil disputes)
Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1983) (district courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying local rules)
Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1989) (motions to enforce settlement agreements are actions to specifically enforce a contract)
United Cal. Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 681 P.2d 390 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) (counteroffers can be accepted to form the basis of a valid contract)
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (2008) (relevance of "me-too" evidence depends on connection to plaintiff’s own circumstances)