## Facts

- Sylvia Del Bosque was an employee of AT&T Advertising, L.P.
- In May 2008, Del Bosque sued AT&T in federal court alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
- The parties attended a mediation on November 18, 2008, and continued settlement talks for several days afterward.
- Del Bosque was represented by counsel throughout the settlement process.
- On November 22, 2008, Del Bosque and her attorney signed a written settlement agreement providing for a monetary payment to Del Bosque in exchange for dismissal of the case (and related release terms). Del Bosque reviewed the written agreement with counsel and made handwritten changes before signing.
- After signing, Del Bosque filed a pro se motion asking to revoke the settlement, claiming she agreed under duress and was incompetent or lacked capacity at the time of execution.
- AT&T moved to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the case, submitting affidavits and related exhibits in support.
- At the motion hearing, no live witnesses were sworn. The district court heard from Del Bosque, Del Bosque’s mediation attorney, and AT&T’s attorney, and it considered AT&T’s affidavit evidence.
- Del Bosque submitted a signed but unsworn letter from a nurse stating that, due to Del Bosque’s “recent worsening condition,” she “may not have been in the best medical condition to enter into a legal agreement.”
- Del Bosque also told the court she was “distraught” during mediation, felt she lacked sufficient time to consider the settlement (though she acknowledged having a weekend to review it with counsel), and believed the underlying facts should have been resolved before settlement.
- The district court denied Del Bosque’s motion to revoke, granted AT&T’s motion to enforce the settlement, and dismissed the Title VII action. Del Bosque appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enforcing the settlement agreement and denying Del Bosque’s motion to revoke based on alleged duress and lack of capacity.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error in the settlement-enforcement hearing by relying on party and counsel statements and affidavit submissions when no witnesses were sworn.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement and dismissing Del Bosque’s Title VII suit.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Del Bosque’s claims of duress and incapacity given the written agreement, Del Bosque’s representation by counsel, and the time and opportunity she had to review and modify the agreement before signing.
- The court found no reversible error in the district court’s handling of the enforcement hearing on this record, including its consideration of affidavits and the participants’ statements.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement agreement in a federal case is enforced as a contract, applying ordinary contract-formation and contract-defense rules.
- A district court may summarily enforce a settlement, but when material facts about the settlement’s existence or validity are genuinely disputed, the court must conduct a hearing that gives the parties an opportunity to present proof. *Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win, Inc.*, 733 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1984).
- Appellate review of a district court’s decision to enforce a settlement is deferential; reversal is warranted only for abuse of discretion.
- Duress requires proof of wrongful pressure that overcomes a party’s free will; emotional upset, regret, or later dissatisfaction ordinarily does not invalidate an agreement, especially where the party had counsel and time to consider the terms.
- Lack of capacity must be supported by competent proof that the party could not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement at the time of signing; tentative, unsworn medical statements are generally insufficient to set aside a signed settlement.
- In assessing a settlement dispute, a district court may consider affidavit evidence and the parties’ and lawyers’ representations made at the hearing, so long as the objecting party has an opportunity to be heard and to submit opposing proof.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld enforcement of Del Bosque’s written Title VII settlement because the district court acted within its discretion in finding the agreement valid and voluntary, and because Del Bosque’s assertions of coercion and incapacity were not supported by competent evidence sufficient to undo the contract.


Del Bosque v. AT&T Advertising, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19280 (2011)