So, how many settlement agreements did Forest City Ratner require relating to former executive Jim Stuckey?

Remember how, on 10/15/11, the New York Post reported on former Forest City Ratner executive Jim Stuckey's abrupt departure from New York University came in the wake of sexual harassment
allegation from a subordinate--and that similar accusations led to his departure from Forest City in 2007.

The Post reported:

According to company sources, Stuckey took all of his subordinates to a club and then called a number of women employees into a private room, where he had them sit on his lap as though he were Santa Claus.
Fearing that mass resignations — of senior executives as well as people who reported to Stuckey — would cause the company a p.r. nightmare at a sensitive time in the Atlantic Yards project, Bruce Ratner pushed Stuckey out and then helped him land the job at NYU. Ratner is a member of the Schack Institute’s advisory board.

There's clearly more to the story, and some hints have surfaced in legal papers in the still-percolating case Bonadio v. NYU, et al., involving Stephanie Bonadio's suit against the university and her former boss Stuckey for sexual harassment and other charges.

At least two settlement agreements

A lawyer for Stuckey wrote in a recent letter to the court:

That is because the prior motion related to a settlement agreement that the Court ordered non-party Forest City Ratner to produce under seal. The Court ultimately determined that the agreement should remain confidential and free from discovery pursuant to the express language of the confidentiality clause in that agreement. Motions No. 5 and 6 relate to the same settlement agreement, as well as another related settlement agreement with an identical confidentiality clause, and therefore deserve the same sealing treatment.

(Emphases added)

In other words, Forest City Ratner signed a settlement agreement, presumably with Stuckey and/or his former colleagues/subordinates. And then it signed a "related settlement agreement," again presumably with Stuckey and/or his former colleagues/subordinates.

And because both have confidentiality clauses, such issues vanish from public discussion.