Tiger Woods has won a Florida state court ruling in his dispute with his ex-girlfriend. The matter was resolved through private arbitration, after the case spilled over into the public courtroom due to accusations of sexual harassment as well as a messy split between the two last October.
The famous golfer won his battle to keep the private dispute he had with Erica Herman from the public’s view after Judge Elizabeth Metzger made her ruling late on Wednesday.
Metzger’s ruling stated that “the parties are ordered submit this case to arbitration.” According to the applicable law, this action is stayed until arbitration has been completed. Once arbitration is completed, the parties will notify the Court. “The Clerk of Court will administratively close the case.”
What is this all about?
It was a question of whether the dispute between Woods’ lawyer and his ex-girlfriend should be settled privately through arbitration in accordance with the terms of a nondisclosure (NDA) agreement that they both signed in 2017. The larger dispute began with their split in October when Herman claimed that Woods had arranged for her to be kicked out of Woods’ house, in violation of a verbal tenancy contract she said she was required to continue living there for a number of years.
Herman, in response to being evicted from her home, sued the trust Woods had established for the house and claimed damages of more than $30,000,000. Woods then tried to have the dispute resolved through private arbitration in accordance with the NDA.
After that, the dispute became even more ugly. Herman sued Woods in March to have that NDA declared invalid by the court. Her lawyer cited new federal law that prohibits NDAs or forced arbitration agreements in cases of sexual harassment. These laws, which were established in 2022 to prevent sexual predators from avoiding public accountability by using NDAs or private arbitration, are designed to do just that.
Her attorney stated in a court document dated 5 May that Herman did not even remember signing the NDA. However, the judge did not buy it.
The judge ruled that Herman had not “denied” her signature on the NDA. Herman has also not “denied” that the NDA’s clear terms require Woods to resolve any disputes, claims, or controversies via confidential, binding arbitration.
What was the nature of her sexual harassment?
Herman did not reveal any details about the incident until her lawyer filed a court filing on May 5 that stated Woods had pursued a relationship with her while she worked at his restaurant, and forced her to sign a NDA regarding it or she would be fired. Herman was employed by Woods at The Woods in Jupiter, Florida until 2020, when she resigned.
Metzger, at a hearing in Stuart (Florida) on May 9 asked Herman’s attorney Benjamin Hodas to clarify this aspect of Herman’s case. Hodas refused to elaborate, claiming that it would violate the disputed NDA which required Herman not to reveal any details about her relationship with Woods.
Hodas wanted the court instead to clarify what he could say about this matter under the law, without violating NDA.
Hodas stated that there are facts and issues that we haven’t filed in court yet involving the sexual harassment part of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. We’ve been careful in what we say to the court and put into writing, due to this document (the NDA). This is because we do not want to violate any of these provisions.
The judge said that Herman’s attorney and Herman did not adequately present their case regarding sexual harassment.
The judge ruled that Herman had “the opportunity to provide factual specificity” for any claims relating sexual assault or harassment. “However she hasn’t done that. Herman’s attorney has never asked for an opportunity to amend the complaint with additional allegations. Herman’s implausibly pled allegations do not allow this Court to determine that the EFFA applies.”
What was Woods response?
J.B. Murray said that the NDA is “valid on its surface” and that had previously called Herman a ‘jilted former girlfriend who was making unfounded claims. He told the court on May 9 that Herman had not followed the proper procedures to file a formal claim for sexual harassment under federal law, but instead made an “end-run” around the steps.
The judge agreed.
The judge ruled that Herman had not brought any claim for sexual assault against the defendant. She has filed a declaratory judgement action, and in her May 5, 2023 response she has made only vague and threadbare mentions of behaviors or actions that she believes constitute sexual harassment.
Herman’s lawyer did not discuss sexual harassment in his case at the hearing on May 9 until the judge asked him to do so with less than ten minutes remaining in the 45 minute proceeding. He spent the majority of the 45-minute hearing questioning whether the NDA was valid and wanted to have an evidentiary proceeding to resolve the issue.
The judge seemed sceptical about this part of the case. Hodas didn’t make the claim that Herman did not remember signing the NDA until May 5, after months of court filings. This specific allegation wasn’t mentioned in Hodas’ lawsuit against the NDA.
The judge ruled that Herman’s lawyer’s attempt to equivocally claim that Herman can’t remember signing the NDA, or that she cannot say “for certain” that she did not, doesn’t create a dispute of fact that requires an evidentiary hearing. “Herman’s burden of denying the NDA is not met.”
Contributing: Melissa Holsman, TCPalm
