Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/387844_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,790 chars

Through compromise and settlement, parties agree to dismiss disputed claims by

making mutual concessions. Harding v. Will, 81 Wn.2d 132, 138, 500 P.2d 91 (1972);

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ.

15B AM. JUR. 2D COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS § 1 (2021). By its

nature, settlement does not secure a party the same vindication that might be won through

litigation. Instead:

Each party generally accepts something less than that to which he believes
he is entitled based on a decision that the compromise is more advantageous
to him than the sum of the risks and benefits involved in pursuing the claim.

Strozier v. Gen. Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1981). The law favors

settlements and the finality they afford. Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wn.2d 539, 544, 573 P.2d

1302 (1978). Washington’s jurisprudence recognizes a strong public policy encouraging

settlements. Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wn.2d 762, 772, 174 P.3d

54 (2007); City of Seattle v. Blume, 134 Wn.2d 243, 258, 947 P.2d 223 (1997); Seafirst

Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Erickson, 127 Wn.2d 355, 366, 898 P.2d 299 (1995).

Generally, a defendant chooses to settle in order to avoid potential liability and

further attorney fees. These purposes would be thwarted if the settling plaintiff could

receive a substantial settlement and then sue the defendant again and cause it to incur

further potential liability and attorney fees. Here, the State sought to ensure this did not

happen by including the no-rehire provision. Without it, Mr. Elgiadi could apply for

rehire, be denied employment even for nonretaliatory reasons, and the State would face

potential liability and further attorney fees.