## Facts

- Robin Hayes, a former sales representative, sued National Linen Service and its parent, National Service Industries, Inc., alleging wrongful discharge under Title VII.
- During litigation in the Northern District of Georgia, Hayes’s attorney advised opposing counsel that he had authority to settle the case for $15,000.
- Counsel for both sides agreed to settle on the $15,000 terms.
- Hayes later refused to accept the settlement, asserting she had not consented and had not authorized her attorney to settle.
- National moved to enforce the settlement agreement.
- A magistrate judge recommended enforcement, finding Hayes’s attorney had apparent authority (and likely actual authority) and that Hayes’s lack of consent was not controlling under Georgia law if apparent authority existed.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, concluded counsel had “apparent, if not actual, authority,” enforced the settlement, and dismissed the action.
- Hayes appealed pro se.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal Title VII nature of the suit required applying federal law rather than state contract law to determine enforceability of the settlement.
2. Whether, under Georgia law, Hayes was bound by the settlement based on her attorney’s apparent authority despite her later objection.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order enforcing the settlement and dismissing the case.
- The court held that state contract law (Georgia law) governed the settlement’s construction and enforceability even though the underlying claim arose under Title VII.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hayes’s attorney had apparent authority to settle and in enforcing the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Settlement agreements are generally construed and enforced under state contract law in federal court, absent a specific reason to apply a different rule.
- The enforceability of a settlement in a federal statutory case does not, by itself, require displacement of state contract principles.
- Under Georgia law, an attorney of record is presumed to have authority to settle; a client avoids being bound only by showing both (a) the attorney’s authority was limited and (b) the limitation was communicated to the opposing party.
- A client’s later refusal to consent does not defeat a settlement entered by counsel with apparent authority where no communicated limitation is shown.
- A district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit enforced a $15,000 settlement in a Title VII case, applying Georgia contract law and holding the plaintiff was bound because her attorney had apparent authority to settle and any limitation on that authority was not communicated to the opposing party.


Hayes v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 1999)