Ballard v. Jackson State University et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Withdraw; granting 51 Motion for Settlement to the extent it seeks to compel Plaintiff to sign a release, provided that release does not contain a confidentiality agreement; adopting 54 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball for the reasons set out in the order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on January 26, 2016. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
VINSON BALLARD
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV672-DPJ-FKB

JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This employment dispute is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [54] of
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. On June 16, 2015, Judge Ball conducted a successful settlement
conference with the parties and the settlement terms were memorialized in a document signed by
Plaintiff Vinson Ballard, his counsel, Defendant Jackson State University’s representative, and
its counsel. Agreement [54-1]. Ballard subsequently refused to sign the release documents and
filed a motion to withdraw settlement [49]. Defendant JSU countered with a motion to
enforcement settlement [51].
After referral by this Court, Judge Ball considered the competing motions and concluded
that a meeting of the minds had occurred and the parties entered into a binding contract. R&R
[54] at 1. He did, however, agree with Plaintiff’s contention that the parties’ agreement did not
contemplate confidentiality, a term which JSU had included in the release documents. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff filed an Objection, which largely consists of arguments regarding the merits of
his claims against JSU and complaints about his counsel. None of these objections are grounds
for setting aside a valid, binding, settlement agreement. See generally Fulgence v. J. Ray
McDermott & Co., 662 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1981) (“If a party to a Title VII suit who has
previously authorized a settlement changes his mind when presented with the settlement
documents, that party remains bound by the terms of the agreement.”).

The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [54] should be adopted as the
opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw settlement [49] is denied. Defendant’s
motion to enforce settlement [51] is granted to the extent it seeks to compel Plaintiff to sign a
release, provided that release does not contain a confidentiality agreement.
Plaintiff is hereby ordered to execute a “full, final, and complete release of all claims
against Defendant, and The Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher
Learning, and their employees, agents, officers, etc.” as expressly stated in the terms of
settlement. Agreement [54-1].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 26th day of January, 2016.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2