Tiger Woods’ former girlfriend raised questions about the non-disclosure agreement that the famed golfer wanted her to sign in 2017, expressing concerns she would lose control and become “heartbroken and jobless” in five to 10 years if she signed it, according to a court document filed this week in Florida.
That NDA is now the subject of a high-profile dispute in public court after his former girlfriend, Erica Herman, went through a messy breakup with Woods in October. She wants the NDA declared invalid by the court and has accused Woods of sexual harassment. She sent an e-mail to Chris Hubman, the chief financial officer for Woods’ company, two days before she apparently signed the disputed NDA on Aug. 9, 2017.
“My only concern is if by chance TW does something that brings our relationship to an end, do I automatically loose (sic) my job?” Herman asked. “I don’t have any problems with what’s in the document because I wouldn’t go public or use anything I know to hurt him or the kids but with my whole life in his hands now I would want to have some kind of control over my future in the business. If something happened 5-10 years down the road I don’t want to be in my 40’s heartbroken and jobless. Thoughts?”
Hubman replied with an e-mail later that day, Aug. 7. Herman then was an employee at Woods’ restaurant, The Woods, in Jupiter, Florida. She resigned from her position there in 2020, according to court documents.
“In my mind, your employment by The Woods Jupiter and your personal relationship with TW are two separate items,” wrote Hubman, the chief financial officer of Tiger Woods Ventures. “I don’t think the end of one automatically impacts the other … although I admit it could be complicated. It will most likely depend on the terms, condition or reason for the relationship ending. The NDA doesn’t address the terms of your TWJ employment … only the dissemination and control of information that you become privy to as a result of your personal and professional relationship with TW.”
“I understand,” she replied.
What is this about?
Herman has accused Woods of sexual harassment, arguing that he pursued a sexual relationship with her when she was his employee and then forced her to sign a non-disclosure agreement about it – or be fired from her job if she did not, according to a document filed by her attorney on Friday.
Herman previously sued a trust established by Woods for his residence in Florida, stating she was kicked out of his house in violation of an oral tenancy agreement to live there. She claimed more than $30 million in damages.
The e-mails were filed in court by Woods’ attorney late Sunday in response to a court filing Friday by Herman in which her attorney stated she didn’t even recall signing the NDA and raised questions about its validity. Woods himself signed a declaration about it Sunday to address this.
“Over the course of my relationship with Ms. Herman, I became familiar with her signature and handwriting. Ms. Herman’s signature appears above her printed name,” Woods stated in his declaration filed in court. “The other handwriting on page 3 (i.e., the dates and the handwriting on the address line below Ms. Herman’s name), is Ms. Herman’s handwriting.”
The disputed three-page NDA filed in court as an exhibit stipulates that disputes between them should be resolved through confidential arbitration rather than in public court. Woods’ attorney is trying to compel this dispute to go to arbitration based on that. But Herman’s attorney is fighting it, citing new federal laws that invalidate NDAs and forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment.
What does the NDA say?
The disputed NDA filed in court begins with this preamble:
“As consideration for the opportunity to continue to (i) spend time with Eldrick “Tiger” Woods (“you”) and to be privy to certain private and confidential aspects of your personal life and your professional and business endeavors and (ii) be employed at the restaurant known as The Woods Jupiter and owned indirectly by you, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, I am entering into this Agreement of my own free will, and agree as follows:”
Among other things, it then says she is not to disclose “private and confidential information which is not generally known to the public” pertaining to health and medical information, sexual matters, leisure activities and personal relationships.
Hubman stated in court records that Herman requested revisions to the NDA regarding photographs of Woods’ children.
It’s not clear what those revisions were, but the NDA filed in court states she “will not directly or indirectly post, share or upload on the internet or in any social media, or otherwise publish or disclose, any pictures, videos, films, tapes or sound recordings of you, your family members, your friends or your business associates.”
In a document filed in court Friday, Herman’s attorney tried to poke holes in the purported NDA by stating Woods didn’t seem concerned about it.
“Woods caused Ms. Herman to be allowed to wear a `players spouse’ badge, posing in public for photo opportunities (including on some occasions with Mr. Woods’s children), and other public events,” said the document submitted by attorney Benjamin Hodas. “Ms. Herman posted photos of herself with Mr. Woods, their friends, and colleagues on social media, with Mr. Woods’s knowledge. Mr. Woods never invoked an NDA to stop such publicity, and such activity would have been prohibited if an NDA was in force or effect.”
The NDA also says disputes are to be resolved in arbitration, though Herman disagrees and wants the court to declare the NDA is invalid and unenforceable for various reasons.
“Because of the aggressive use of the Woods NDA against her by the Defendant and the trust under his control, the Plaintiff is unsure whether she may disclose, among other things, facts giving rise to various legal claims she believes she has,” her attorney stated in her lawsuit filed in March.
Woods’ attorney, J.B. Murray, has labeled Herman a “jilted ex-girlfriend” and said her case has no merit and is flawed.
“Ms. Herman in this case does not even attempt to assert a cause of action rising to the level of sexual harassment under any federal, tribal, or state law,” he stated in a document filed late Sunday. “This Court should not permit Ms. Herman to end-run her obligation to arbitrate her disputes with Mr. Woods with implausible claims of sexual harassment that are not even raised in her amended complaint.”