Federal Court Denies Motion to Enforce Settlement in Charlotte Fire Department Discrimination Case

A long-running employment discrimination case involving the Charlotte Fire Department is heading back to trial after a federal judge ruled that an enforceable settlement was never reached between the City of Charlotte and Captain Lance Patterson, a 20-year veteran of the department.

Patterson, along with co-plaintiff Captain Sylvia Smith-Phifer, alleged that the City engaged in systemic race and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the North Carolina Constitution. Both plaintiffs claimed they were denied promotions, special assignments, and training opportunities due to race, gender, and prior protected activity .

In November 2022, while Captain Smith-Phifer’s trial was underway, her case was resolved through a written settlement. Captain Patterson’s case, scheduled to start weeks later, entered settlement talks that appeared to result in an agreement. A mediator circulated terms including a $180,000 payment ($79,000 to Captain Patterson and the remainder to his attorney) and 2,200 hours of sick leave to bridge him to retirement at 25 years. The City responded with what Patterson viewed as a confirmation of the deal.

However, when the City later sent a draft agreement, it included only 1,375 hours of sick leave, contending that was all that was required to get Captain Patterson to twenty-five years. The city also contended that the $79,000 payment would not be pension-eligible, and that Captain Patterson would retire. The negotiations broke down, prompting Captain Patterson to seek enforcement of what he argued was a finalized agreement.

The district court initially granted Captain Patterson’s motion to enforce, but the City appealed. In 2024, the Fourth Circuit vacated the order, holding that factual disputes existed over whether a binding agreement had been reached and whether the parties intended to be bound absent a signed writing. The case was remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.

At the June 2025 hearing, Captain Patterson’s counsel argued that the mediator’s email and the City’s response constituted mutual assent. The City countered that all parties understood settlement would be contingent on a signed written agreement and City approval. Testimony from the City’s attorney confirmed that approval by the City and a fully executed document were prerequisites to any final deal.

On July 23, 2025, Judge Timothy Reif denied Captain Patterson’s motion to enforce the settlement on the terms he sought, concluding the email exchange represented only a preliminary agreement in principle, not an enforceable settlement. The court emphasized that the absence of a signed written agreement and unresolved material terms—particularly the sick leave hours—meant there was no “meeting of the minds” necessary to form a binding contract.

As a result, the court returned the matter to the trial calendar, setting jury selection to begin on December 9, 2025. Here is a copy of the decision.