On October 7, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Darrah issued a written statement and order granting CVS` summary judgment application and dismissing the EEOC`s appeal against CVS. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-cv-863 (N.D.Ill.2014). In that action, the EEOC asserted that CVS`s termination agreement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was invalid and unenforceable. The case has been closely monitored by labor lawyers, as CVS` severance pay terms are typical of those often used by labor workers in termination or separation agreements. Some labour lawyers were concerned that the invalidation of the terms and conditions of sale of dismissal or separation agreements would create obstacles to the negotiation of labour law comparisons. The incentive for most employers to pay workers monetary comparisons of labour rights is to obtain a release of rights and an agreement, not to take legal action against payment. If these conditions were declared unenforceable, the incentive would be lost and it would take very creative lawyers to structure viable comparisons of labour rights. This will not be the case given Justice Darrah`s dismissal of the EEOC`s appeal.
Or you might find that you first violated the termination agreement and invalidated it and all its terms. For example, one of the terms of your departure agreement could be a non-disparaging clause. If you misreported your employer or acted in a way that would have a negative impact on your employer after signing your termination agreement, you have breached your severance pay agreement and declared it null and void. A federal judge in Chicago recently dismissed the EEOC`s lawsuit against CVS. The EEOC had asserted that CVS` standard indemnification agreement under Title VII was not applicable. The EEOC`s attempt to invalidate CVS` dismissal agreement was closely followed by labour law specialists. This is because CVS severance pay is typical of severance pay agreements used by many other employers. If the usual terms of separation agreements, such as a general exemption from rights, a confidentiality clause and the obligation not to bring legal proceedings, were declared unenforceable, employers would have less incentive to settle their labour law rights. Why pay a large amount of money to an employee to pay a right to work without a general exemption? This is the dilemma that labour lawyers would have faced if they had tried to resolve their labour law rights, if the EEOC had succeeded.
. . .