Andria Borsody, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination case against FedEx in the District of Kansas. Concurrently, she pursued workers' compensation claims in state administrative proceedings. The disputes were intertwined, leading to a global settlement mediated in November 2024. The parties signed a handwritten term sheet outlining three payments: one for lost wages, one for compensatory damages, and a third designated for an attorney's lien held by George Pearson. The term sheet required Borsody to indemnify FedEx for taxes and keep the settlement terms confidential. Although the district court administratively closed the federal case, the parties failed to file a stipulation of dismissal because Borsody refused to agree to the payment of Pearson's lien. While Borsody challenged the lien in state administrative proceedings, FedEx moved in federal court to enforce the settlement. The district court ruled the term sheet was valid and enforceable, ordering payment to Pearson and denying Borsody's subsequent motions to reconsider or enjoin enforcement. Borsody appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the lien before the state process concluded, that the court modified settlement terms by requiring tax forms, and that the enforcement violated her due process rights.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. The panel first addressed the issues raised by Borsody, noting that she failed to raise two of her six arguments in the district court, rendering them forfeited. Regarding the remaining issues, the court found that Borsody waived arguments that were not adequately presented in her opening brief. Specifically, she offered no legal support for her claims regarding jurisdiction, due process, or improper modification of terms. On the merits of the enforceability of the term sheet, the court found Borsody failed to meet the heavy burden of showing an abuse of discretion. She presented no reasoned argument explaining why the district court erred and cited only a non-pertinent New York state case. The court emphasized that even construing her pro se filings liberally, she did not demonstrate that the district court lacked a rational basis for its ruling. Regarding the motion to seal, the court balanced the public's right of access against the parties' agreement to confidentiality. While the court disagreed that the confidentiality agreement alone outweighed public access, it acknowledged that the doctrine of waiver lowered the weight of the public interest in this specific context. Consequently, the court ordered the redaction of financial terms from public filings and sealed specific exhibits containing the term sheet and related emails to protect the settlement's confidentiality without completely blocking access to the record.
The decision confirms that handwritten term sheets can be enforceable settlement agreements if the parties intend them to be binding. It reinforces the requirement that appellants must provide reasoned legal arguments and citations in their opening briefs or risk waiver. The ruling also establishes a practical framework for sealing settlement documents in the Tenth Circuit, allowing for redaction of financial terms while sealing specific exhibits to balance public access with confidentiality. The district court's enforcement order stands, requiring the parties to proceed with the settlement terms as written, including the payment of the attorney's lien.