Michael Savage was an employee of the City of Memphiss Public Works Division who filed an equal…

Michael Savage was an employee of the City of Memphiss Public Works Division who filed an equal protection claim against the City of Memphis after being terminated. The Citys Civil Service Commission upheld the termination. Savage subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the chancery court which found substantial and material evidence to support the commissions decision but remanded the case on the equal protection claim. Before the hearing took place, the Assistant City Attorney Barbaralette Davis, acting with the approval of the City Attorney, contacted Savage to
Michael Savage was an employee of the City of Memphiss Public Works Division who filed an equal protection claim against the City of Memphis after being terminated. The Citys Civil Service Commission upheld the termination. Savage subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the chancery court which found substantial and material evidence to support the commissions decision but remanded the case on the equal protection claim. Before the hearing took place, the Assistant City Attorney Barbaralette Davis, acting with the approval of the City Attorney, contacted Savage to discuss if he would be willing to resolve the dispute through a mediation. Savage agreed to mediate and the two parties agreed to have former Judge Bernie Weinman serve as the mediator. Prior to the mediation, Judge Weiman informed the parties that each side had to bring someone with the authority to settle to the mediation. The mediation came to a successful close and the parties reached an agreement to settle for $72,000. Davis had Savage sign the settlement and informed Savage that she would get the ball rolling on getting the check request routed. The settlement agreement was eventually submitted to the City Mayor, AC Wharton, to sign, despite the fact that the settlement agreement did not contain any language to indicate that enforceability of the agreement was subject to the mayors approval. Wharton rejected the settlement agreement upon reviewing it, saying that he knew nothing about the case, and Savage subsequently filed a petition to enforce settlement. In the lawsuit, Savage asserted that the City of Memphis was bound by the settlement agreement because Davis had authority to settle the matter and that Mayor Wharton had delegated the authority to Davis. The City argued that it was not bound to the settlement because Davis had no actual or apparent authority to enter the settlement without the Mayors approval. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Savage and the City of Memphis filed an appeal. How did the appeals court rule? What reasons did the judge give? Do you agree with this reasoning? [Michael Savage v. City of Memphis, 464 S.W.3d 326; 2015 Tenn. App.]