Attorneys for Tiger Woods on Monday filed a motion in a Martin County (Fla.) court to compel legal claims brought by his ex-girlfriend, Erica Herman, to arbitration and table her case. Woods argues that Herman has wrongfully attempted to litigate a dispute that she contractually agreed would be arbitrated. The motion will likely require Herman’s attorneys to be more specific about her insinuations about possible sexual assault or sexual harassment—or else face a heightened risk of the case being dismissed to arbitration.
As Sportico detailed, Herman has filed two lawsuits, one against a Woods-established trust that has an interest in Woods’ Florida home worth (according to Zillow) about $45.8 million and the other against Woods. Herman, who dated and worked for Woods for about six years and lived with him in the home, argues that a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) she and Woods signed in 2017 is unenforceable and that the trust owes her at least $30 million in damages. The alleged damages reflect what Herman claims is a right under an alleged oral contract to continue to live in the home for another five years.
NDAs are generally enforceable when they are regarded as reasonable. NDAs are also found in various employment settings. The Woods-Herman situation, however, has certain atypical qualities beyond its involvement of a billionaire golfer. Woods and Herman not only dated but Herman worked for Woods, including serving in a supervisory role at Woods’ restaurant, The Woods.
Excerpts of the NDA have been revealed in court filings. Section 3 is entitled “Dispute Resolution” and states that Woods and Herman agreed “the exclusive manner of resolution of any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising between [Woods and Herman] of any nature whatsoever … shall be resolved by mandatory BINDING confidential Arbitration to the greatest extent permitted by law.” It also says they agreed that “by agreeing to arbitration, [they] are giving up any rights [they] may have to a trial by judge or jury with regard to matters which are required to be submitted to mandatory binding Arbitration.” The expansively worded NDA would seem to cover both personal and professional matters in the Woods-Herman relationship, though the court will scrutinize the context in which Herman signed the contract.
In his court filing on Monday, Woods argued the mandatory arbitration language is unambiguous and explicitly requires Herman to arbitrate. “Ms. Herman is a jilted ex-girlfriend who wants to publicly litigate specious claims in court, rather than honor her commitment to arbitrate disputes in a confidential arbitration proceeding,” the motion said. The motion also cites case law indicating that arbitration agreements are “strongly favored as a matter of public policy and will be enforced whenever possible.”
Woods also asked the presiding judge, Elizabeth Metzger, to rule that none of Herman’s claims are for sexual assault or sexual harassment. The request reflects two new federal laws, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act and the Speak Out Act, that allow a person who contractually agreed to arbitration the option to sue. That option is only available when the claims concern sexual assault or sexual harassment. Although Herman referred to these two laws in court filings, she has not accused Woods of sexual assault or sexual harassment. If Metzger sides with Woods, she would be inclined to send the case to arbitration.
In response to Woods’ motion on Monday, Herman’s attorneys know they will need to clarify how these laws are relevant to their client’s case. If they cannot offer that specificity, Metzger would be more inclined to side with Woods and send the case to arbitration.
