Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CONTRACT CLAIMS—D. Kan.: Teacher’s settlement agreement waived discrimination and retaliation claims, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The teacher, who had been placed on leave pending an investigation into a student’s complaint against him, signed a separation and release agreement and then sued the school district.

A teacher who signed a separation agreement and release (SAR) after an investigation found he engaged in inappropriate behavior was barred from bringing claims against the district under Title IX, Title VII, and the ADEA, a federal court in Kansas ruled. Under the seven-fact “totality of the circumstances test” adopted by the Tenth Circuit, his SAR was given effect as it was found to have been entered knowingly and voluntarily (Underwood v. Cheney Unified School District No. 268, No. 6:26-cv-01026-AWM-BGS (D. Kan. Aug. 13, 2026)).

Placed on leave. The teacher had been employed by the Cheney Unified School District for over 20 years when a student filed a formal Title IX complaint against him. After an investigation, the district found he engaged in behavior “inconsistent with our organization’s values, policies, and standard of conduct.” He appealed and after further investigation, the district’s Title IX investigation substantiated the student’s complaint. The school district placed the teacher on paid administrative leave pending determination of appropriate disciplinary action against him.

SAR. The teacher was advised by his attorney not to sign a waiver of claims agreement if he wanted to file an age discrimination claim. The attorney further advised him ““if you settle, you will not have any due process hearing (either before the board or an arbitrator), you will not be able to file a discrimination complaint, and you will not be able to file a lawsuit.” Despite this advice, the teacher signed the SAR, which included a resignation letter. Under the SAR, he agreed to release the school district from liability in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $24,550, in addition to his contracted salary of $5,450 that accrued while he was on paid administrative leave.

Lawsuit. Thereafter, he sued the school district under Title IX, Title VII, the ADEA, and Section1983. He argued that the SAR was unenforceable because of coercion and constructive duress, misleading legal advice, failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and the ADEA, procedural defects in the Title IX process, and the overbreadth and illegality of the SAR. He also alleged that “he was led to believe that federal claims were unavailable or barred” and that he was misled from understanding “the potential for pursuing age discrimination and Title IX claims.”

The school district moved to dismiss the complaint.

Knowing and voluntary? The court determined that the crux of the dispute was whether the teacher’s SAR was knowing and voluntary. Under the Tenth Circuit’s “totality of the circumstances test” courts will consider: (1) the clarity and specificity of the release language; (2) the plaintiff’s education and business experience; (3) the amount of time the plaintiff had for deliberation about the release before signing it; (4) whether the plaintiff knew or should have known his rights upon execution of the release; (5) whether the plaintiff was encouraged to seek, or in fact received benefit of counsel; (6) whether there was an opportunity for negotiation of the terms of the agreement; and (7) whether the consideration given in exchange for the waiver and accepted by the employee exceeds the benefits to which the employee was already entitled by contract or law.

The court considered each factor separately.

Clarity and specificity of the SAR. The court noted that the SAR stated that the teacher “forever waives and releases” claims against the school district under Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and any claims relating to wrongful or discriminatory treatment. In a separate provision, it also waived age discrimination claims. The court held that clear language of the SAR and its explicit references to the federal laws and statutes under which the teacher attempted to assert his claims weighed heavily in favor of a finding that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the SAR.

Education and business experience of the teacher. The court next concluded that it was reasonable to infer from the teacher’s more than two decades of employment as a teacher that he was educated and did not lack business experience.

Time for deliberation before signing the SAR. The court noted that the OWBPA and ADEA require that a release must provide an employee with at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seven days after execution to revoke the agreement. Here, the teacher had over 30 days to consider his rights under the SAR. The court found his allegations that he was effectively pressured into executing the SAR due to stress, health concerns, and misleading advice from counsel were not supported by factual allegations that met a plausibility standard.

Teacher’s knowledge of his rights under the SAR. The court also found that the teacher received sound counsel from his attorney as to the meaning of the SAR and that the signing of the SAR would be a waiver of all of his employment and Title IX claims.

Was the teacher encouraged to seek counsel? The fact that an attorney participated in negotiating the SAR undercut his argument that it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered into. The teacher provided emails between himself and his counsel that reflected that he received sound and beneficial advice.

Opportunity to negotiate SAR terms. Next, the court stated, the time between the notice of administrative leave on August 13 and teacher’s signing of the SAR on September 23 reflected an opportunity for negotiation. Most importantly, the teacher’s communications with his counsel showed that there were negotiations between the teacher and the school district.

Did SAR consideration exceed benefits already entitled to the teacher? The court further determined that the SAR provided for consideration of the teacher’s contracted salary he accrued while on paid administrative leave of $5,450 in addition to a lump-sum payment of $24,550. The contracted salary amount of $5,450 was consideration to which the teacher was already entitled. The lump-sum payment of $24,550 was not consideration to which he was already entitled. Accordingly, the SAR’s consideration exceeded the benefits to which he was already entitled, and this factor weighed in favor of its enforcement.

Allegations of coercion and duress. The court also found that although duress or coercion can invalidate a settlement agreement, the teacher’s allegations of coercion and duress did not describe a wrongful act or wrongful threat by the school district. The threat of possible termination was merely an exercise of the district’s legal right to discipline him based on the results of the Title IX investigation of the student’s allegations. The teacher’s stress about professional consequences was insufficient to amount to duress and his allegations did not describe a wrongful act or wrongful threat by the school district.

Allegations of misleading legal advice. Finally, the court found that to the extent the teacher alleged his counsel provided less than competent representation, the matter was between the teacher and his counsel, not the school district.

Accordingly, the court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice.

The case is No. 6:26-cv-01026-AWM-BGS.

Judge: Mattivi, A.

Attorneys: Than Underwood, pro se. Alan L. Rupe (Alan Rupe Law) for Cheney Unified School District No. 268 and Marc A. Woofter.

Companies: Cheney Unified School District No. 268

Cases: ContractClaims RemediesDamages KansasNews