Grullon v. Sodexo
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-09142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Grullon v. Sodexo, Judge Halpern enforced the parties’ oral settlement and denied the alternative dismissal motion as moot.
The ruling binds Jose Grullon and the defendants—Sodexo, John Ceccolini, and Babatunde Cole—to the settlement the court enforced. The case was closed, and Grullon was denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Jose Grullon v. Sodexo, Grullon sued Sodexo, John Ceccolini, and Babatunde Cole under federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on race, national origin, and age. During mediation, the parties agreed to a $15,000 payment in exchange for Grullon’s release and dismissal of the case, but Grullon later sought to withdraw from the agreement.
The defendants asked the court to enforce the settlement or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint. Grullon opposed enforcement, saying he agreed because he wanted to leave the mediation and go home. The court found that the parties had agreed to all material terms, that Grullon assented in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter, and that neither he nor his lawyer had said a written agreement was required.
Judge Halpern granted the motion to enforce the settlement. He denied the alternative motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, directed the Clerk to close the case, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Grullon v. Sodexo · No. 7:23-cv-09142
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 15, 2025
Background
Jose Grullon, proceeding without a lawyer and without having to prepay court fees, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against Sodexo, John Ceccolini, and Babatunde Cole. The court referred the case to mediation and limited pro bono counsel entered an appearance for settlement-related matters. A mediation took place on March 22, 2024. The defendants later told the court that the parties had reached a settlement, but that Grullon had subsequently expressed a desire to withdraw from it.
With the court’s permission, the defendants moved to enforce the settlement or, alternatively, to dismiss the complaint. Grullon opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a settlement is a contract and that a court may enforce a settlement reached in a case before it. For an oral settlement, courts in the Second Circuit consider four factors: whether the parties reserved the right not to be bound without a written agreement; whether either side partly performed; whether the parties agreed to all terms; and whether the agreement is the kind usually put in writing.
The court found that these factors supported enforcement. The parties orally confirmed the material settlement terms in the mediator’s presence. Those terms provided that Sodexo would make a one-time payment of $15,000 in exchange for Grullon’s release and dismissal of the action with prejudice. The court found that Grullon assented while his lawyer and an interpreter were present, and that neither Grullon nor his lawyer reserved the right not to be bound unless a written agreement was signed.
The court also found that Grullon’s limited-purpose lawyer had at least apparent authority to settle on his behalf. Grullon was present when the lawyer expressed his assent to the settlement and did not object at that time. The court further found that the material terms had been agreed upon and that the simple, single-payment settlement was not the type of agreement that necessarily had to be committed to writing. Grullon’s later change of mind, including his statement that he agreed because he wanted to leave the mediation and go home, did not make the agreement unenforceable.
Disposition
Judge Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement. The court denied the defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss the complaint as moot. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Grullon the ability to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.