Angel M. Lebron, Jr., Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 15, 2000
01990358 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 15, 2000)

01990358

03-15-2000

Angel M. Lebron, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Angel M. Lebron, Jr. v. United States Postal Service

01990358

March 15, 2000

Angel M. Lebron, Jr., )

Complainant, )

)

v. )

) Appeal No. 01990358

William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 5F-1419-92

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On September 1, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) pertaining to his complaint

of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The

Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

Complainant contacted the EEO office claiming he had been discriminated

against when: 1) management referred him to the Employee Assistance

Program (EAP); and 2) he was sexually harassed by two female employees.

Informal efforts to resolve complainant's concerns were unsuccessful.

Accordingly, on October 13, 1992, complainant filed a formal complaint

based on national origin and retaliation.

The complaint was accepted and assigned for investigation. Following

the investigation, the agency issued a FAD, dated January 13, 1995,

finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed the decision to the

Commission on February 17, 1995. On April 27, 1995, the agency notified

the Commission that the FAD had been issued in error, because it did

not realize that the complaint had been withdrawn as part of a MSPB

settlement agreement. The Commission found that it could not determine

whether the complaint was settled, but concluded that it failed to state

a claim. See Lebron v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952561

(May 2, 1996). On request for reconsideration, the Commission found

that the prior decision improperly dismissed the complaint for failure

to state a claim. See Lebron v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05960609 (July 18, 1997). The complaint was remanded to the agency

for a supplemental investigation regarding the settlement agreement.

Specifically, the agency was ordered to "produce any and all evidence

available concerning the provision in the MSPB settlement agreement

allegedly withdrawing complaint No. 5F-1419-92, including, any written

signed settlement agreement..., an authorized copy of the audio cassette

recording wherein [complainant's] then attorney read into the MSPB record

the terms of the settlement agreement, or a certified transcription of

the relevant portions of the MSPB hearing." Id.

Pursuant to the Commission's order, the agency conducted a supplemental

investigation and issued a FAD dated August 3, 1998. The FAD dismissed

the complaint for failure to state a claim, stating that the settlement

agreement specifically provided that complainant "withdraw any and all

EEO complaints or appeals he presently has pending...."

On appeal, complainant contends that the settlement meetings did not

result in a signed agreement. Moreover, he argues that the recording

of the hearing was edited to falsely reflect his agreement to the

settlement terms.

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a)) provides that any

settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties,

reached at any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both

parties. The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes

a contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary rules

of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of Defense,

EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further

held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,

not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795

(August 23, 1990).

In the instant case, the record contains a certified transcription of

the audio cassette recording of complainant's hearing. The transcription

indicates that a settlement agreement was reached, requiring complainant

to "withdraw any and all EEO complaints or appeals he presently has

pending...." The transcription also reflects that after the terms of the

agreement were read into the record; that complainant was asked by the

MSPB's administrative judge (AJ) whether the terms were acceptable; that

complainant responded that they were and that he had discussed them with

his attorney. Thus, the Commission determines that the record supports

a finding that the agency and complainant entered into a legally binding

settlement agreement. We note that 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)(to

be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.603) provides that "Any settlement reached

shall be in writing and signed by both parties and shall identify the

claims resolved." However, the Commission has previously upheld an oral

settlement agreement in the situation where an agreement was formed

during a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge and transcribed

by a court reporter. See Acree v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request

No. 05900784 (October 4, 1990). In Acree, the Commission noted that the

hearing transcript evidenced the agreement between the parties and that

the subsequent written version of the agreement reflected the terms of

the oral agreement that was evidenced in the hearing transcript. We find

the present circumstances to be sufficiently analogous. Although there

is not a hearing transcript in the record, the certified transcription

of the tape recording is an equivalent on which to bind the parties.

Further, a subsequent written version of the agreement reflects the

terms described in the transcription. Therefore, we find that the

parties entered into a valid settlement agreement as described in Acree.

The settlement agreement, as reflected in the certified transcription,

provides that complainant withdraw any and all EEO complainants or appeals

pending at that time. The instant complaint was filed on October 13, 1992,

and therefore is covered by the July 26, 1994 agreement. Accordingly,

we find that the instant complaint is settled and fails to state a claim.

The agency's decision to dismiss the complaint was proper and is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS

OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). All requests and arguments must be

submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the

absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed

timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration

of the applicable filing period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604).

The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the

other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you

receive this decision. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS

THE DEFENDANT IN THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD

OR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND

OFFICIAL TITLE. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your

case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,

and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

March 15, 2000

____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.