Coerced and pressured into accepting severance

[Taxing Matters]

It may not be lawsuit worthy but does it make the severance agreement null and void?

In general a contract is void or voidable if the contract was the result of either duress or fraud. Duress means that the employer used some illegal force or threat of force to induce you to enter into the agreement. For example, if a supervisor put a gun to your head and told you to sign or he'd shoot you, that's duress. Fraud is making a materially false statement of fact to induce you to give up something of value or act against your interests. Material means that the statement is one that would have an impact on your decision whether to enter into the deal. If the employer told you that you were going to be laid off anyway and that fact was important to your decision to enter into it then the employer likely committed fraud if the employer knew at the time the statement was made that you were not going to be laid off. Of course, you would have the burden to prove the fraud and thus prove that the employer knew it was not going to do the lay off, and the standard for proving fraud is often higher than proving most other civil claims — clear and convincing evidence rather than preponderance of the evidence.

 

[cbg]

Oh dear God are you still here?

NO. THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED THAT AUTOMATICALLY NULLIFIES OR VOIDS THE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT.

The devil is in the details. If you take the entire agreement to an attorney in your state, there is about a one is sixteen million chance that he might find some language that voids the agreement. You can then pay back all the severance, apply for unemployment and file a lawsuit.

Of course, the fact that this happened over a year ago means that unemployment will be denied since you're now beyond the limit to file for that time, and your lawsuit will fail because EVEN IF THE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT IS VOID YOU STILL DO NOT HAVE THE BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT unless you have some kind of supportable and verifiable proof that you were selected for this treatment BECAUSE of your age and/or gender, and can find a way around the fact that the SOL has passed for a discrimination claim; or, alternately, if you have proof sufficient to stand up in a court of law that your boss knew at the time that the layoff was not going to happen.

I am an over 60 female myself, and one who used to teach employers and employees alike how to recognize illegal discrimination. Unless you have left out material facts, that's not what's happening here.

 

[jimbond68]

In general a contract is void or voidable if the contract was the result of either duress or fraud. Duress means that the employer used some illegal force or threat of force to induce you to enter into the agreement. For example, if a supervisor put a gun to your head and told you to sign or he'd shoot you, that's duress. Fraud is making a materially false statement of fact to induce you to give up something of value or act against your interests. Material means that the statement is one that would have an impact on your decision whether to enter into the deal. If the employer told you that you were going to be laid off anyway and that fact was important to your decision to enter into it then the employer likely committed fraud if the employer knew at the time the statement was made that you were not going to be laid off. Of course, you would have the burden to prove the fraud and thus prove that the employer knew it was not going to do the lay off, and the standard for proving fraud is often higher than proving most other civil claims — clear and convincing evidence rather than preponderance of the evidence.

Thank you for the non condescending reply to my question. There is more at stake ger for me than just a financial concern. Some here think that all relates to compensation one way or another. That is not the case at all here. This guy lied to me, took advantage of me, manipulated me, and did so without the consent of the corporate brass. If there is any chance that what he did may constitute as fraud, I will pursue it just to back that XXX into a corner and possibly make him answer for his actions against me.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for the non condescending reply to my question. There is more at stake ger for me than just a financial concern. Some here think that all relates to compensation one way or another. That is not the case at all here. This guy lied to me, took advantage of me, manipulated me, and did so without the consent of the corporate brass. If there is any chance that what he did may constitute as fraud, I will pursue it just to back that XXX into a corner and possibly make him answer for his actions against me.

How do you expect him to "answer for his actions"?