Breanne S.,1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 31, 2018

0120181194 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Breanne S.,1
Complainant,

v.

Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120181194
Agency No. IRS160295F

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission on February 27, 2018, from the January
25, 2018 final order dismissing her EEO complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq., based on the parties having reached a settlement. At all relevant times, Complainant was
employed as an International Tax Law Specialist, GS-987-9, in the Agency’s Wage & Investment
Division, Philadelphia Accounts Management in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The record reflects that, on January 24, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into a global
settlement agreement, while the matter was before an EEOC Administrative Judge, that resolved
all the issues raised in her June 16, 2016 EEO complaint. On appeal, Complainant, among other
things, argued that she was coerced into signing the settlement agreement. She stated that she
believed she signed the agreement while under duress because of the “nature of the meeting that
took place that day.” She stated that she felt very uncomfortable signing, but that she signed due
to negative pressure from the Agency’s lawyer. She also stated that the fact that the agreement
was pre-written proves that none of her concerns were taken into account.

If coercion, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, or mistake occurs during the formation of the
contract, assent to the agreement is impossible, and the Commission will find the contract void.
See Pridgen v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130496 (May 9, 2013)
(citing Shuman v. Dept. of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990)).

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120181194

2
The Commission, however, favors the voluntary resolution of discrimination complaints;
therefore, settlement agreements are not lightly set aside. Bens v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No.
0120091969 (October 14, 2009), req. for recon. den’d, EEOC Request No. 0520100112 (Feb. 14,
2011). The Commission examines coercion claims with much scrutiny. The party raising the
defense of coercion must show that there was an improper threat of sufficient gravity to induce
assent to the agreement and that the assent was in fact induced by the threat. Such a threat may be
expressed, implied, or inferred from words or conduct, and must covey an intention to cause harm
or loss. A complainant’s bare assertions will not justify a finding of coercion. Lenihan v. Dept. of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05960605 (Dec. 5, 1995).

In the present case, the first paragraph of the agreement states that upon its execution, Complainant
“voluntarily” withdraws (with prejudice) the complaint, and all other actions involving the
Agency. 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. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996).

We find that Complainant presents no persuasive evidence, apart her own unsupported statements,
that she was forced to sign the instant agreement due to coercion and duress. See Swanson v.
Dept. of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120101729 (Aug. 24, 2010), req. for recon. den’d, EEOC
Request No. 0520110037 (Dec. 10, 2010) (allegation that management threatened to fire
complainant insufficient to establish coercion); Harshany v. Dept. of Army, EEOC Appeal No.
0120063990 (Mar. 9, 2007) (allegation that Agency told complainant to sign the offer before
leaving or “offer was off the table” insufficient to establish coercion); Cannella v. Dent. of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01995444 (Dec. 5, 2000), req. for recon. den’d, EEOC
Request No. 0520010196 (Apr. 13, 2011) (allegation that Agency’s representative threatened
complainant’s wife and attorney with criminal prosecution insufficient to establish concern).

Accordingly, Complainant’s February 27, 2018 appeal is hereby DISMISSED, because we find
that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement that resolved Complainant’s complaint.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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.
0120181194

3
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission.

0120181194

4
The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File
a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

October 31, 2018
Date