Mediation Isn’t a “Try-It-and-See” Exercise: When You Settle on the Record, the Deal Usually Sticks
Mediations often end with a familiar moment: the parties reach agreement, everyone exhales, and the lawyers move on to “papering it up.” But what happens when one side later decides the settlement was a mistake — refuses to sign — and tries to walk it back?
That question drove the US Court of Appeals First Circuit’s recent decision in Maccarone v. Siemens Industry, Inc. (Jan. 29, 2026). The court affirmed enforcement of a settlement negotiated at a court-annexed settlement conference (functionally, a mediation), even though the plaintiff later refused to execute the written documents. The opinion is a crisp reminder that mediation outcomes are not “provisional” simply because the final agreement has not yet been signed — particularly when the material terms have been stated on the record and assent is clear.
For counsel and clients, the case is a practical lesson in how courts evaluate post-mediation regret, how to build an enforceable record at the settlement conference itself, and how quickly the litigation train can restart (or, as here, end) when a party refuses to honor a mediated deal.
What happened in the mediation
After motion practice narrowed the dispute to federal wage claims, the district court scheduled trial. The parties then participated in a court-annexed settlement conference before a magistrate judge. The plaintiff appeared by Zoom. The parties negotiated and ultimately reached an oral settlement. Critically, the magistrate judge recited the essential terms on the record, and counsel for both sides confirmed the agreement. The district court later placed a recording of the settlement conference on the docket under seal, and — relying on the settlement — canceled the imminent jury selection and empanelment.
The key terms were straightforward and familiar to any mediation participant: payment of a sum certain within about thirty days after execution; standard provisions such as confidentiality and no-rehire; dismissal with prejudice; each side bearing its own fees and costs; and a full release of claims.
Then came the pivot that mediators and litigators recognize all too well: after seeing the written settlement documents (and after the adrenaline of the conference had faded), the plaintiff told her counsel she would not sign. She asserted she felt pressured, raised concerns about certain provisions, and sought to reopen what had already been resolved.
The enforcement posture: “We have a deal — and we can prove it.”
When settlement unravels after mediation, the procedural vehicle is typically a motion to enforce the settlement. That is exactly what happened. The employer moved to enforce. The plaintiff opposed and requested an evidentiary hearing, arguing (among other things) undue influence, lack of mutual assent as to allegedly “material” terms, and complaints about the fact that the agreement was captured by recording rather than a stenographic transcript.
The district court enforced the settlement and ordered execution of the documents, finding the written papers accurately reflected the agreement reached at the settlement conference. It also declined to hold an evidentiary hearing on undue influence because the plaintiff offered no meaningful factual basis in the opposition papers.
The plaintiff then sought reconsideration under Rule 60(b), insisting that a chambers email suggested a hearing would occur and that she should have been allowed to testify about incapacity or influence. The district court again refused, noting the lack of independent evidence of impairment or undue influence and characterizing the situation as classic “buyer’s remorse.”
When the plaintiff continued to refuse to sign despite clear court orders, the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to comply. The district court dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed across the board.
How the First Circuit treated the mediated settlement
1) Oral settlements reached in mediation can be binding
The First Circuit’s reasoning tracks a principle that shows up again and again in settlement enforcement decisions: an oral settlement is enforceable if the parties mutually assent to all material terms. The absence of a signed, final writing is not automatically a problem — and refusal to sign later does not, by itself, defeat enforcement.
Here, the facts that mattered most were practical and objective:
The parties negotiated actively at the settlement conference.
The magistrate judge carefully recited and memorialized the material terms on the record.
The plaintiff did not object or condition assent at the time.
Counsel expressly confirmed the agreement.
The plaintiff’s later objections (including issues like alleged ambiguities and tax consequences) surfaced only after the settlement was reached.
That combination made the appellate panel comfortable affirming enforcement: the record demonstrated a clear objective manifestation of assent to material terms.
2) “Buyer’s remorse” is not a legal theory
Mediation can be emotionally and financially intense. Parties may feel relief when the case resolves and then, later, feel regret — particularly if friends, family, or advisors second-guess the deal, or if the settlement paperwork reads more starkly than the negotiated bullet points.
The First Circuit’s message was blunt: a party’s later change of heart is not grounds to unwind a knowing and voluntary settlement.
That is an important concept for counsel to communicate to clients before and during mediation: the settlement conference is not a rehearsal. If agreement is reached on material terms and assent is captured in a reliable way, courts are likely to enforce it.
3) No evidentiary hearing is required when there’s no genuine factual dispute
Parties sometimes request evidentiary hearings as a way to relitigate the settlement conference or to create leverage for renegotiation. Courts are not required to indulge that tactic.
The First Circuit reiterated a key standard: if there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence or terms of the settlement, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.
In Maccarone, the plaintiff’s allegations of undue influence were not supported with concrete facts in the initial briefing on enforcement. A later desire to testify — unsupported by timely, specific evidence — did not transform the dispute into one requiring a hearing.
4) Refusing to sign after enforcement can end the case
Once a court enforces a settlement and orders execution, continued noncompliance becomes a court-order problem, not a mediation problem. Here, the plaintiff’s refusal to sign after enforcement led to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
That sequence is sobering: a party can lose not only the ability to unwind the settlement, but also the remaining litigation leverage — and, depending on circumstances, face costs and fees. The court emphasized that judicial dockets cannot be manipulated by litigants who settle and then attempt to reverse course.
Practical takeaways for attorneys and clients heading into mediation
(1) Build an enforceable settlement record at the conference itself
When settlement is reached, counsel should consider whether there is a clean way to memorialize the deal while everyone is still present. Maccarone underscores the power of:
Reciting the essential terms in a structured way,
Confirming assent on the record,
Avoiding vague “we’ll work out the details later” language around anything a party might later claim is “material,” and
Clarifying whether signing a written agreement is a condition precedent or merely documentation of an agreement already formed.
(2) Identify and define “material terms” before the handshake
Many post-mediation disputes arise because one side later claims a term was “material” even though it was not negotiated clearly. If confidentiality, non-disparagement, no-rehire, tax characterization, timing, or release scope are likely pressure points, it is worth tackling them explicitly in the mediation session.
(3) Manage client expectations in real time
Clients sometimes experience pressure during mediation simply because mediation is designed to test risk and reality. The safer approach is to build in moments for client check-ins, confirm understanding, and ensure the client is comfortable saying “not yet” if something truly needs more time.
At the same time, Maccarone reinforces that courts generally will not rescue a party from post-session regret if assent was clear when the deal was struck.
(4) Where a neutral can add value when settlement is fragile
The decision is also a reminder of the value of skilled neutrals in the settlement conference process — not only in getting the parties to “yes,” but in shaping the closing moments so the outcome endures. A neutral who is resolution-driven can help parties:
Reduce ambiguity around terms likely to become flashpoints,
Ensure mutual understanding of what is being agreed to (and what is not),
Create a clean process for confirming assent, and
Keep negotiations efficient without letting momentum slide into later regret.
For parties and counsel looking for an arbitrator or mediator who emphasizes clarity, careful listening, and enforceable outcomes — especially in business disputes, tort matters, consumer cases, and employment disputes — Nationwide ADR is built for exactly that work. Arbitration and mediation remain the core focus, supported by Early Dispute Resolution tools like Early Neutral Evaluation, mock trials, mini trials, and special master services when a matter calls for an earlier and more structured path to resolution.