In a courtroom in Martin County, Florida, Tiger Woods’s defense team will present their argument on Tuesday, asserting that Erica Herman, Woods’s former girlfriend, should be subject to arbitration and that recently passed federal statutes do not apply to their case.
The legal dispute between Herman and Woods revolves around a Non-Disclosure and Acknowledgement Agreement supposedly signed by both parties on August 9, 2017. Section 3 of the agreement, titled “Dispute Resolution,” stipulates binding arbitration for any issues arising from the agreement. However, in her response filed on May 5, Herman claims that she does not recall signing the NDA and does not recognize the form.
In a filing submitted on Sunday by Woods, a declaration from Christopher J. Hubman, the CFO of ETW Corporation, Woods’s business management company, states that he introduced the NDA draft to Herman on April 17, 2017. After she requested some changes, Hubman sent her a revised copy on July 13, and she returned a fully executed copy on August 9, 2017. The filing includes email exchanges between Hubman and Herman discussing the NDA.
On July 13, Hubman emailed Herman regarding the requested revisions, stating, “As a follow-up to our conversation, attached please find a revised NDA which addresses the matters we discussed, i.e., taking pictures of the kids and your employment by TWJ.”
On August 7, Herman emailed Hubman raising her concern about the NDA’s impact on her job if her relationship with Woods were to end. She expressed her desire to have some control over her future in the business, stating, “If something happened 5-10 years down the road, I don’t want to be in my 40s heartbroken and jobless.”
Hubman responded the same day, distinguishing her employment by The Woods Jupiter and her personal relationship with Woods as separate matters. He stated that the end of one would not automatically impact the other but acknowledged that it could be complicated, depending on the terms and conditions of the relationship ending.
During the time of the alleged execution of the NDA, Herman worked as an employee at The Woods Jupiter, a restaurant owned by Woods in Jupiter, Florida. However, she ceased working at the establishment on February 17, 2020, at Woods’s insistence, according to court documents.
Herman had moved in with Woods in late 2016 and resided in his Jupiter house until October 2022 when Woods terminated their relationship. On March 6, 2023, Herman filed an original complaint against Woods for Declaratory Judgment, requesting a jury trial and suggesting she experienced sexual harassment or assault. She sought to nullify the arbitration clause and the NDA under the federal Speak Out Act and the newly enacted Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.
In their reply supporting the Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on Sunday, Woods’s attorneys contend that the upcoming hearing is primarily procedural and not evidentiary. They argue that Woods does not need to establish a prima facie case with admissible evidence. The defense team asserts that the NDA was properly executed, and Herman agreed to arbitrate disputes with Woods.
Furthermore, Woods’s side maintains that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act does not apply to this case, asserting the validity of the arbitration clause. They cite the case of Yost v. Everyrealm, Inc. as support, which is one of the few cases adjudicated under the new law.
In Herman’s most recent court filing, it was suggested that if she indeed signed the NDA, it was because Woods, as her boss, imposed it upon her to maintain her job while they were engaged.
In Tuesday’s proceedings, Woods’s defense team aims to resolve the arbitration issue in light of Herman’s claims. Conversely, Herman hopes the court will recognize the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act as applicable to her case, rendering the arbitration clause null and void.
The outcome of this legal battle carries significant implications for both parties involved. For Woods, a successful argument for arbitration would mean resolving the dispute privately and away from public scrutiny. On the other hand, if the court upholds the applicability of the federal statutes invoked by Herman, it could pave the way for a public trial, potentially exposing Woods to greater scrutiny and potential damages.
As the courtroom drama unfolds, legal experts will closely examine the evidence presented by both sides, scrutinizing the validity of the NDA and the circumstances surrounding its execution. The court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences not only for Woods and Herman but also for the broader landscape of legal disputes involving non-disclosure agreements and the rights of individuals in cases of sexual assault and harassment.
Only time will tell how the courtroom proceedings will unfold and what impact they will have on the legal precedent surrounding non-disclosure agreements and federal statutes concerning sexual assault and harassment.Regenerate response.
