Is An Agreement Read Into the Record by Lawyers for the Commission and the Respodent a Consent Order ?
In Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Ammon K. Graybill, Jr., Inc., 482 Pa. 143, 393 A.2d 420 (1978), the Supreme Court considered whether an agreement read into the record by lawyers for the Commission and for the respondent was a consent order.
The terms of the agreement were presented to the Commission at its next meeting, and it voted to approve it.
However, Graybill, the respondent corporation, never did approve it.
The Supreme Court concluded that a consent order had not been effected.
In the absence of Graybill's approval, the Supreme Court explained that the Commission "should have proceeded ... by resumption of the hearing and the eventual entry of whatever order it determined to be appropriate." Id. at 149, 393 A.2d at 423.
Because one-sided, incomplete settlement was not a consent order, the Supreme Court held that it could not be enforced in a court proceeding.