So, you got an agreement to arbitrate an employment case. That’s pretty good. It simply means that all sides have a sensible anticipation – or at minimum the hope – of ending the day with a contracted settlement agreement. But far too often the mediation day does not end that way. Rather, the parties often part with a term sheet mentioning items to include in a final, formal agreement to be signed at some later point in time. This leaves attorneys ending the day only to subsequently battle over the final agreement for some period – sometimes even months. We all know that settlement agreement lawyers in London who have been in this scenario and have seen the needless frustration and used energy. The battle is not over the settlement amount (mediation at least resolved that difference), but the other terms. It does not have to be this way.
The good settlement agreement lawyers in London attorneys will understand the key areas of concern and be updated with solutions that are agreeable to all sides that they can either meet before mediation (if the parties exchanged a draft agreement) or at the mediation’s end so that the only thing to do at the end of mediation day is to factually fill in the amount to be paid, when defendant must pay it, and any other detailed non-monetary items exchanged during the mediation.
Savvy defense attorneys generally use language into settlement agreements mentioning something like “Plaintiff agrees that all wages owed have been paid.” The attorneys appeal for this statement to ensure that Labor Code section 206.5 does not apply to invalidate the settlement agreement. Section 206.5 prohibits employers from asking employees to sign releases to receive wages owed and so vacuums all contracts releasing an employee’s claims where the employer has not paid all wages owed.
Settlement agreements often contain reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. That provision allows courts to enter judgment to apply the terms of a settlement signed by both parties. But do you always need this reference in settlement agreements? Certainly not.
Employers often focus on settlement agreement language that restricts the plaintiff from working for them in the future. The demand is so monotonous that such provisions are now commonplace. But their triteness does not mean that they are always going to be legitimate.
The risks are predominantly strong in industries where there are relatively few key players, or where consolidation remains a risk. Airlines are one example. In 2008, there were eight major airline companies. Today, after mergers and acquisitions, there are only four. Nearer to home, the healthcare industry in the region is witnessing rapid consolidation into a few key companies as well. This consolidation’s net effect is to limit the future employment opportunities for persons who sign settlement agreements limiting their future employment.
The good settlement agreement lawyers in London attorneys will understand the key areas of concern and be updated with solutions that are agreeable to all sides that they can either meet before mediation (if the parties exchanged a draft agreement) or at the mediation’s end so that the only thing to do at the end of mediation day is to factually fill in the amount to be paid, when defendant must pay it, and any other detailed non-monetary items exchanged during the mediation.
Savvy defense attorneys generally use language into settlement agreements mentioning something like “Plaintiff agrees that all wages owed have been paid.” The attorneys appeal for this statement to ensure that Labor Code section 206.5 does not apply to invalidate the settlement agreement. Section 206.5 prohibits employers from asking employees to sign releases to receive wages owed and so vacuums all contracts releasing an employee’s claims where the employer has not paid all wages owed.
Settlement agreements often contain reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. That provision allows courts to enter judgment to apply the terms of a settlement signed by both parties. But do you always need this reference in settlement agreements? Certainly not.
Employers often focus on settlement agreement language that restricts the plaintiff from working for them in the future. The demand is so monotonous that such provisions are now commonplace. But their triteness does not mean that they are always going to be legitimate.
The risks are predominantly strong in industries where there are relatively few key players, or where consolidation remains a risk. Airlines are one example. In 2008, there were eight major airline companies. Today, after mergers and acquisitions, there are only four. Nearer to home, the healthcare industry in the region is witnessing rapid consolidation into a few key companies as well. This consolidation’s net effect is to limit the future employment opportunities for persons who sign settlement agreements limiting their future employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment