Deadbeat former employer

[electrospect]

What is the name of your state? Florida
My former employer refuses to pay agreed salary and vehicle allowance. There are also unpaid expense reimbursements. I have filed a small claim with the clerk of the court and he has been served. After being served my former employer mailed me a check for only the expenses which is only about 15% of the total monies owed. He wrote on the back under the signature line "In full release of any and all claims". Is there any way to cash this without relinquishing my right to follow through with the small claim for the rest of the monies owed? If not what should I do with the check?

[justalayman]

I don;t know if this would fulfill the obligation of accord and satisfaction but why take the chance.

Simply hang onto the check and bring it with you when you go to court. The judge will tell you what to do with it.

[dcatz]

This is an attempt at an accord and satisfaction, which your statutes define as follows:
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d)
(2) Accord and satisfaction requires (a) a preexisting dispute between the parties, (b) the parties’ mutual intent to settle the dispute by agreement, and (c) the tender and acceptance of a settlement agreement as full satisfaction and discharge of the parties disputed obligation.

One problem is that your courts have been mixed on (1) what constitutes "mutual intent" and (2) whether you can deposit the check under a "reservation of rights" or whether such a deposit acts as evidence of mutual intent.

Your version of the Uniform Commercial Code states, in part:
(1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument and
the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim
It goes on to say:
(1)A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
That's my emphasis added at Section (2).

So, while adding an endorsement like:
"This check is deposited under protest, without prejudice, and with preservation of all rights of the payee against the drawer of this check." may work (and some commentators have suggested it would), there is no assurance, and your version of the UCC suggests that it would be inadvisable.
You already have your case filed. You would be better protected to follow justalayman's advice and hold on to it to use as evidence of the dispute.
The fact that your employer added the endorsement could be argued to be evidence in support of your contention that more is owed.