to be an offer of compromise, may be admissible, not as evidence of the claim underlying the offer, but to establish a claim arising from the so-called offer itself. For example, in Nor-den v. Samper, 503 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.D.C.2007), the court rejected the defendant employer’s “frivolous argument” that a “return-to-work proposal” that it had made to the plaintiff employee was an inadmissible “offer to compromise” the employee’s Rehabilitation Act claim, stating that given its onerous terms, the proposal “was not an offer to compromise within the meaning of Rule 408 — it was itself a retaliatory, adverse act that violated the Rehabilitation Act.” Id. at 158 (footnote omitted). See also Andersen v. Midland Lutheran College, No. 8:11CV93, 2011 WL 2680487, at *4 (D.Neb. July 8, 2011) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, plaintiffs state that
holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding that plaintiff was entitled in opposing motion to dismiss to rely on defendants offerofsettlement letter not to show liability for the underlying claims but for another purpose  that is to establish an independent violation constituting retaliation unrelated to the underlying claims which were the subject of the correspondence holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss holding that although the specific underlying felony is an essential element of felonymurder the government is not required to include the elements of the underlying felony or state the specific means by which it alleges the defendant committed the underlying felony holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion