Judge Shira Scheindlin
Pierre sued Chase Investment Services Corp. (CISC) for discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She was represented by counsel at a July 2012 settlement conference before a magistrate judge. Both sides reached and agreed to settlement, the terms of which were placed on the record. Although the settlement was intended to be memorialized by a written agreement the parties could not agree on terms. District court granted CISC enforcement of the verbal settlement before the magistrate judge. Under the Second Circuit’s 2007 ruling in Powell v. Omnicom, BBDO/PHD verbal, in-court settlement agreements can be binding and enforceable despite never being reduced to writing. Three of the four factors in Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t., favored enforcement, the first and third factors strongly so. There was no express reservation of right not to be bound until a written document memorializing the parties’ verbal settlement was signed. Further, the transcript of the settlement conference showed that the parties agreed on all material terms and that there were no substantive issues left for future negotiation. Also, while more substantive terms of the agreement had not been performed, two of its more incidental terms were.
