Olamuyiwa v. Zebra Atlantek, Inc.
45 A.3d 527
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Olamuyiwa, an African-American Nigerian, was hired by Atlantek in 2001 as a technician and remained employed after Zebra Atlantek acquired Atlantek.
- Zebra Atlantek notified a February 2005 layoff; plaintiff’s layoff ultimately occurred April 29, 2005.
- On January 10, 2005, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights alleging race-based discrimination and related claims.
- At the April 29, 2005 meeting, plaintiff received a Letter Agreement and a Confidential Waiver and Release; signing the release was a condition to severance benefits and included waivers of FEPA claims and attorneys’ fees, with a seven-day revocation period.
- Vaillancourt, Zebra’s HR manager, testified she read the materials and advised consulting counsel; plaintiff signed the documents a few days later without attorney review.
- Plaintiff later filed suit in November 2005; Zebra moved for summary judgment in 2009, which the Superior Court granted, holding the release valid and plaintiff waived FEPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FEPA void the release as applied to FEPA claims? | Olamuyiwa contends FEPA requires attorney attestation and prevents waiver of FEPA rights. | Zebra argues the release is valid under FEPA; FEPA provisions do not void the private settlement. | No; FEPA provisions are unambiguous and do not void the release. |
| Is § 28-5-17(d) applicable to this case? | Olamuyiwa says the attestation requirement applies to the release. | Zebra maintains § 28-5-17(d) applies only to Commission actions, not a private release. | Inapplicable; release was not a Commission settlement. |
| Is § 28-5-24.1(d) applicable to the judgment here? | Olamuyiwa asserts the court cannot enter a judgment settling FEPA claims without attestation. | Zebra argues the court’s summary-judgment decision is not a “consent order or judgment settling FEPA claims.” | Not applicable to a non-consent, merits-based summary judgment. |
| Did the court err by focusing on form over substance? | Olamuyiwa claims FEPA protections are ignored by the form of the release. | Defendant contends statute language is unambiguous; court cannot expand FEPA beyond its text. | Court did not err; statutory language is unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., 24 A.3d 544 (R.I. 2011) (summary judgment de novo standard; evidentiary burden)
- Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417 (R.I. 2009) (summary judgment review; material facts)
- Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Neary, 785 A.2d 1123 (R.I. 2001) (statutory interpretation; de novo review)
- In re Harrison, 992 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2010) (unambiguous statutes; literal interpretation)