Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This is an employment-discrimination action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, her former employer, violated inter alia the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated her employment. Not long after the Complaint was filed, the parties undertook settlement negotiations, ultimately agreeing to resolve this matter in November 2011 — or so it appeared. A dispute has now arisen regarding whether
Summary: ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This is an employment-discrimination action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, her former employer, violated inter alia the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated her employment. Not long after the Complaint was filed, the parties undertook settlement negotiations, ultimately agreeing to resolve this matter in November 2011 — or so it appeared. A dispute has now arisen regarding whether t..
More
ORDER
RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
This is an employment-discrimination action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, her former employer, violated inter alia the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated her employment. Not long after the Complaint was filed, the parties undertook settlement negotiations, ultimately agreeing to resolve this matter in November 2011 — or so it appeared. A dispute has now arisen regarding whether there was, in fact, a settlement between the parties, a dispute primarily concerning the tax treatment of the sum to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff. In other words, given the amount of the settlement payment, the parties' present dispute is over a relatively small amount of money. Nevertheless, they have now fully briefed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement (Doc. No. 11), which is scheduled to be heard by the undersigned on April 5, 2012.
In the Court's view, given the amount in question, the parties' time (and money) would be best spent finally resolving this action, rather than appearing for a hearing before the undersigned on the Motion to Enforce, which may or may not end this case. Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes for a settlement conference. The hearing before the undersigned, currently scheduled for April 5, 2012, is CANCELED and will be rescheduled only if the parties are unable to resolve this matter with the Magistrate Judge. Given that the parties apparently engaged in settlement negotiations with a spirit of cooperation, however, it is the undersigned's sincere hope that spirit will return and further proceedings before the undersigned will be unnecessary.