Elaine Pilon v. University of Minnesota and the Regents of the University of Minnesota

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the plaintiffs claim was “at most ... that her lawyer improperly advised her as to the legal effect of the words of the release,” not that she signed the release as the result of fraud or duress
• finding clear waiver of a Title VII claim in a provision in which a graduate student released the university “from any and all manner of action . . . which [the plaintiff] ever had”
• considering the clarity of the release, whether the plaintiff consulted an attorney, whether the plaintiff negotiated the terms of the release, and the absence of any evidence of fraud or duress, i.e., “Leavitt factors” (2), (3), (7), and (9)
• Title VII case where release precluded “any and all claims which may have been asserted in a certain action pending in Hennepin County District Court”
• voluntary release bars future action on all claims covered by release
• voluntary release bars future action on all claims covered by release

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).