OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Martin A. Gromulat brings this action against defendants Cynthia Wynn, Kelly Darrow, Kathy Pandekakes, and Human Development Services of Westchester (“HDSW”), alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Now pending is defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties and dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. #40). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was employed by defendant HDSW. Plaintiff alleges he was subject to disability discrimination and unlawfully terminated on November 26, 2018. (Doc. #38 (“SAC”) 36). Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 13, 2019. (SAC 39; see Doc. #38-3). Plaintiff and HDSW participated in mediation conducted by the EEOC on December 5, 2019. (SAC 40). Plaintiff was represented by attorney V. Jonas Urba, Esq. (Doc. #42 (“Saccomano Aff.”) 5). At the mediation, the parties reached a settlement and executed a Confidential Negotiated Term Sheet. (Doc. #42-2 (“Term Sheet”)). The Term Sheet provides: 1. The parties…desire to settle this action without further litigation. 2. The parties agree that [plaintiff] will not institute a lawsuit regarding the above-referenced Charge, and that this matter is settled. 3. The settlement will be formally memorialized in a more detailed Confidential Negotiated Settlement Agreement, with General Release (“Settlement Agreement”), to be prepared by counsel for [HDSW] and sent by e-mail to [plaintiff]‘s counsel no later than December 12, 2019. 4. [Plaintiff] acknowledges that he has been advised to consult with an attorney and has been given a reasonable time to consider the agreement before signing. (Id.
1-4). In addition, HDSW agreed to pay plaintiff $27,500, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, within thirty days of the execution of the formal Settlement Agreement. (Id. 5(a)). One-third was to be paid to Mr. Urba and the balance to plaintiff. (Id.). Further, plaintiff agreed to maintain confidentiality, and HDSW agreed to provide him a neutral employment reference. (Id. 5(b)-(c)). In accordance with the Term Sheet, HDSW provided plaintiff with a draft final agreement. Negotiations over the language of that final agreement ensued. On January 17, 2020, HDSW’s counsel provided a revised draft final agreement to plaintiff and Mr. Urba. In his cover email, HDSW’s counsel explained: Attached is the revised settlement agreement. The Agency has excepted [sic] all of your requested changes except for those in paragraph 13. With regard to paragraph 12 which addresses Mr. Gromulat’s entry into the Agency’s offices, it is the standard advice of our Firm that a former employer not allow that access. However, in this matter, we have tried to balance that concern and preserving Mr. Gromulat’s ability to pursue his current employment and NHMA board involvement. Please return executed originals of this Settlement Agreement and the EEOC’s agreement to me. (Doc. #38-4 at ECF 3).1 Plaintiff responded by email that he “hereby revoke[s] any acceptance of this agreement.” (Doc. #38-4 at ECF 3). He further clarified he “w[ould] not take any further action concerning this matter until [he] hear[d] back from the Mediator regarding [his] serious concerns.” (Id. at ECF 2). Plaintiff offers two versions of what caused the breakdown in negotiations and what happened next. First, according to the second amended complaint, plaintiff signed a settlement agreement but defendants refused to sign the agreement or to pay him the agreed-upon amount. (SAC 40).2 As a result, the EEOC mediator concluded no settlement was reached and plaintiff’s case was referred for further investigation, which culminated in the issuance of a right-to-sue letter. (Id. 41; see Doc. #38-1). Second, according to different portions of the second amended complaint as well as plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion, plaintiff did not believe the Term Sheet was a final agreement because it did not provide for what he understood to be a material term: his continued access to HDSW’s offices to continue to service his clients there. (SAC
