Trefethen v. Liberty Mutual

2011 DNH 167

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 12, 2011
• Docket: 11-CV-225-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Trefethen v. Liberty Mutual 11-CV-225-SM 10/12/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Margaret Trefethen, Plaintiff

v. Case No. ll-cv-225-SM Opinion No. 2011 DNH 167 Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Defendant

O R D E R

In her seven-count complaint, Margaret Trefethen asserts

that her former employer. Liberty Mutual Group, wrongfully

terminated her employment and then fraudulently induced her to

sign a release of claims. Liberty Mutual moves for judgment on

the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) . That motion is

denied.

The thrust of Liberty Mutual's argument is this: in exchange

for severance pay to which she was not otherwise entitled,

Trefethen knowingly and voluntarily signed a "Severance Agreement

and General Release" (document no. 5-1), which precludes her from

pursuing each of the multiple claims advanced in this litigation.

That may or may not be true, depending on the evidence Trefethen

is able to produce in support of her fraud, undue influence, and

misrepresentation claims. According to her complaint, Trefethen did not "knowingly" or

"voluntarily" sign the release. Rather, she says she signed it

only after Liberty Mutual exerted undue influence upon her and

affirmatively misrepresented the scope and legal effect of the

release. If, as Trefethen claims, the release is unenforceable,

it plainly cannot serve to bar her discrimination and wrongful

termination claims. Equally plain is the fact that, at this

preliminary stage of the litigation, the court cannot conclude

that Trefethen's claims - weak as they may appear to be - are

necessarily barred as a matter of law. At this juncture, the

court must accept the factual allegations in Trefethen's

complaint as true. Consequently, the arguments presented in

Liberty Mutual's motion are more properly addressed after

discovery, and in the context of a motion for summary judgment.

See Bryant v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., No. ll-cv-217-SM, 2011

DNH 151 (D.N.H. Sept. 29, 2011) .

Based on the arguments advanced in its motion. Liberty

Mutual has not demonstrated that it is entitled to the relief it

seeks. Accordingly, defendant's motion for judgment on the

pleadings (document no. 6_) is denied.

2 SO ORDERED.

McAuliffe /Chief Judge

October 12, 2011

cc: John E . Lyons, J r ., E s q . Nancy E. Oliver, Esq.