not that settlement negotiations were ongoing. In the paragraph preceding the sentence that the plaintiff quotes, the Administrative Judge explains that the settlement agreement had to be read reement’s terms read into the record and the parties’ oral acceptance, the defendant has shown that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on October 26, 1994, which waived the plaintiffs discrimination claims in the present case. The plaintiff also argues that she did not have the proper knowledge, volition, or capacity on October 26, 1994, to enter into a settlement agreement. Opponent’s Amended Responsive Submission in Response to Exhibit D of the Court’s Order, at 4. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 52 & n. 15, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 & n. 15, 39 L.Ed.2d 147, 160 (1974) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff claims that she suffered from
holding that a voluntary and knowing plea agreement is equivalent to a contract and the promises stated within must be fulfilled by the parties holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant holding that the court must determine whether the employees consent to the settlement agreement was knowing and voluntary holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable