Question

In November 1998, Brenda Makins, represented by John Harrison, Esquire, brought an action against the District of Columbia, alleging sex discrimination and retaliatory firing. Makins had been employed by the District from 1995 until her discharge in 1997. The district court judge referred the case for settlement negotiations. The parties were ordered to either attend the settlement conference or be available by telephone during it. Makins did not attend in person. Harrison and the District's attorney negotiated for two and a half hours and reached an agreement. Harrison left the room with his cell phone in hand, apparently to call Makins. When he returned, the attorneys shook hands on the deal and later reduced it to writing. When Harrison presented the agreement to Makins for signature, she refused to sign. The District requested that the district court enforce the agreement. How should the judge rule? Discuss.

Answer 1

In this case, Makins was asked to attend the settlement conference either in person or through a telephone. The Attorney and Harrison also waited for two and a half hours after the said time and reached an agreement. We don't know definitely about the conversation between Makins and Harrison over the phone and also what were the conditions put forward by Makins for settlement. A reasonable decision can be made only after hearing the claims of both Harrison and Makins.

However, from the given situations and instances we can conclude that Harrison even though representing Makins, can not make final decisions on behalf of her. Harrison has not got any authority to settle the agreement on behalf of Makins. Therefore, the court/judge can make the agreement made void.