For a court to consider maintaining a separation agreement as part of divorce proceedings, it would have to meet these conditions: to make your separation agreement legally binding, Grayson`s legal experts would recommend this procedure: the court found that, under New Hampshire law, an action for undue coercion would essentially claim that the agreement was not signed voluntarily and that: Bryant would have to prove that it had unwittingly accepted the terms of Liberty Mutual`s treaty and that the coercive circumstances were the result of Liberty Mutual`s actions, that Liberty Mutual was unduly pressuring, and that, in the current circumstances, Bryant had no choice but to accept the terms set by Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit overturned the court`s revocation and reinstated McClellan`s Title VII and the EPO`s claims. The Court of Appeal ruled that staff were not required to return funds they had received under a severance pay agreement, a precondition for the submission of claims under Title VII or the EPO. The Court of Appeal argued that "the obligation on recently dismissed workers to repay their severance pay before they can assert rights under Title VII and the EPO would only serve to protect ill-intentioned employers to the detriment of the legal protection of workers at a time when these workers are most economically exposed". The Sixth Circuit stated that, in the event that the employee imposed a title VII or EPO duty, the money paid to the employee under the termination agreement could be "deducted from any bonus."