Hand v. Dayton-Hudson

775 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an attorney and had been employed by D from 1967 to 1982. In February of 1982, P lost his job with Dayton-Hudson allegedly as a result of a major restructuring by Dayton-Hudson. D made an offer to pay him $38,000 if P agreed to release Dayton-Hudson of any claims he might have against it. Prior to the signing, P had prepared another release which provided that he was releasing all claims 'except as to claims of age discrimination and breach of contract.' Except for the changes made by P to limit the terms of the release, P's release was identical to the original prepared by Dayton-Hudson. The typewriter on which it was written was of the same type and model; the number and structure of paragraphs were identical; all other language and punctuation was identical; and the headings were also identical. In addition, when P presented this release to Mr. Harms, a Dayton-Hudson official, P attached the outline of termination benefits to this release in the same manner that it had been attached to the original release. Despite the changes made, the documents appeared superficially identical. P's release was signed, and then P filed a complaint in district court alleging age discrimination and breach of contract claims against Dayton-Hudson. Dayton-Hudson answered that P had fraudulently procured its agent's signature on the modified release and requested reformation of the release to conform to the original offer made by Dayton-Hudson. Dayton-Hudson moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court granted summary judgment on the issue of fraud, reformed the release, and held that summary judgment was appropriate since P's claims were precluded by the reformed release. P appealed.