Tiger Woods’ former girlfriend asks court to reconsider ruling in their dispute

The former girlfriend of Tiger Woods has filed a request with a state court in Florida to reconsider a recent ruling that sent her public dispute with the famed golfer to private arbitration proceedings instead of public court.

An attorney for Erica Herman filed the request Wednesday, seeking to revive her case in front of a state court judge after she previously accused him of sexual harassment and revealed ugly details about her breakup with Woods in October.

The request states there were “at least four issues that were overlooked or not considered” in the ruling by Judge Elizabeth Metzger on May 17. The judge ruled in favor of Woods, but Herman’s attorney said his client didn’t get a fair shake.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate without a finding that she agreed to do so, which means that in this case — with no evidence in the record — arbitration should not be compelled, or, at a minimum, an evidentiary hearing should be held,” said the document filed by Herman’s attorney, Benjamin Hodas.

What else did the request say?

Hodas also said Herman made “meritorious objections” to Woods’ documents that were not ruled on by the judge and that Herman did not concede the existence of an agreement to arbitrate her dispute. He also said Woods “could not meet his burden to establish the contract he seeks to enforce.”

The contract in question is the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that Woods’ attorney said the two had signed in August 2017. Herman recently claimed in court documents that she didn’t remember signing the NDA, which required her to keep private details of her life with Woods confidential and to resolve disputes between the two in private arbitration instead of public court.

In response, Woods’ attorney said the NDA is “valid on its face” and the judge agreed in her ruling May 17, noting Herman never actually denied signing it.

“Importantly, Herman has not ‘denied’ that her signature is on the NDA,” the judge ruled on May 17. “Herman additionally has not ‘denied’ that the clear terms of the NDA require the resolution of her disputes, claims or controversies with Woods via binding, confidential arbitration.”

Herman’s attorney is still pushing her case, however.

“Upon reconsideration, the Court should conclude that there is no evidentiary basis on which it can state findings of fact that support a conclusion that the parties agreed to arbitrate this dispute and, therefore, deny the Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration,” said the request filed Wednesday. “In the alternative, the Court should reconsider the Order and schedule an evidentiary hearing, preceded by appropriate discovery.”

What is this about?

It’s part of a larger domestic dispute stemming from their breakup in October, when Herman claims Woods arranged to trick her into being locked out of his house on the Treasure Coast of Florida. She filed a lawsuit shortly after that, claiming her ouster violated an oral tenancy agreement she had to remain in the residence for several more years. She claimed more than $30 million damages in this lawsuit, which was not filed against Woods but against the trust that he established for his home.

Woods then sought to steer the dispute into private arbitration before Herman filed another lawsuit in March, this time against Woods himself. The latter lawsuit sought to release her from the NDA, citing new federal laws that invalidate NDAs and forced arbitration agreements in cases of sexual assault or harassment.

Herman didn’t get into any detail about sexual harassment claims until May 5, when her attorney filed a court document that said Woods pursued a sexual relationship with her when she was his employee at his restaurant and then forced her to sign an NDA about it – or be fired from her job if she did not. Herman worked at his restaurant, The Woods, in Jupiter, Florida, before she quit in 2020.

The judge indicated Herman didn’t go far enough to make her case about this if she wanted those federal laws to apply.

“Herman has had the opportunity (to) provide factual specificity for any claim relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment,” the judge ruled. “However, she has not done so.”

Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com