Tiger Woods's Ex-Girlfriend's Remaining Legal Options Are Limited After Ruling
Tiger Woods's former girlfriend Erica Herman lost her biggest bargaining chip late on Wednesday when Florida Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Metzger ruled in favor of Woods.
The ruling by Judge Metzger compelled enforcement of the Non-Disclosure and Acknowledgment Agreement dated Aug. 9, 2017, including its provision for arbitration.
Since her initial filing, Herman hoped that she could invalidate the arbitration provision and force the proceedings into open court, where Herman could air private information about the relationship in public rather than behind the closed curtain of arbitration.
It was clear from the outset of the case that started when Woods tricked Herman out of his house on Oct. 13, 2022, in Jupiter, Fla., that Woods's former girlfriend wanted more than Woods was willing to give.
According to court documents, Woods had arranged a local luxury resort for Herman to live in and was willing to provide funds that she could apply toward a new residence.
But Herman, in her original complaint for a declaratory judgement on March 6, clearly wanted more, specifically asking to have the court invalidate the NDA and arbitration clause by use of the newly enacted Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 and the Speak Out Act.
Just the mention of those two acts plus Woods caused a stir in the media, even though no facts of specific instances of sexual harassment or sexual assault were ever produced by Herman in either court filings or in the only hearing to compel arbitration that was held on May 9.
When Herman’s counsel Benjamin Hodas was asked after the hearing why he did not provide any factual evidence about the sexual harassment or sexual assault as required under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, his response was limited.
“Because of the sensitive nature of this matter I’m not going to comment,” Hodas said.
In ruling against Herman in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Metzger said, “Herman has not pursued any claims for sexual assault or sexual harassment against Defendant; she has solely pursued a declaratory judgment action and has only made vague and threadbare references to behaviors or actions she contends constitute sexual harassment.”
Since the NDA and the arbitration clause could not be invalidated, the court had no choice but to find in favor of Woods and order the case to be submitted to arbitration.
While its possible that testimony and evidence could be provided to invalidate the NDA in the future, Herman and her legal team must be willing to disclose it, if it exists, no matter how sensitive the evidence is to the arbitrator and not the court under this ruling.
While the court docket lists case number 2023-CA-000175 as closed, the case between Herman and Woods is technically still pending, and the court must be advised once arbitration is complete.
With this decision by the court, Herman’s options are now extremely limited and whatever legal maneuvering she does going forward will be in front of an arbitrator in a closed hearing.