Clarence M. Hill, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 17, 2000
01a02747 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 17, 2000)

01a02747

08-17-2000

Clarence M. Hill, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Clarence M. Hill v. United States Postal Service

01A02747

August 17, 2000

Clarence M. Hill, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A02747

William J. Henderson, ) Agency Nos. 4-H-310-0264-97

Postmaster General, ) 4-H-310-1014-95

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision by the agency dated February 8, 2000, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of the January 14, 2000 settlement agreement

into which the parties entered.<1>

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(5) It is understood by the undersigned that the instant agreement

is in full and complete settlement of the following (cases): EEOC

No. 110-99-8014X, Agency Nos. 4-H-310-0264-97, 4-H-310-1014-95.

(6) It is further stipulated that the withdrawals are made without any

threat, coercion, intimidation, promise, or inducement other than the

terms set forth in the agreement.

(7) The [agency] in return for the above, agrees to compensate the

Complainant in the gross sum of twenty five hundred dollars ($2,500).

(8) Further, this settlement agreement contains the entire agreement

between the Complainant and the [agency] . . .

The [agency] agrees to remit the settlement proceeds to Complainant

within three weeks of the date of signing this agreement.

By letter to the agency dated February 6, 2000, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,

complainant alleged that the agency failed to pay him the agreed upon

amount within three weeks of the signing of the agreement. In addition,

complainant stated that the agency breached the agreement by sending

complainant a January 24, 2000 call-in notice for an interview,

instructing him to provide his medical records. Also, complainant argued

that he was under duress when he signed the settlement agreement.

In its February 8, 2000 decision, the agency stated that it committed an

immaterial breach of the agreement by failing to remit the settlement

proceeds to complainant within the specified three week period.

The agency claimed, however, that once complainant informed the agency

of the problem, it made further efforts to ensure remittance.

On appeal, complainant argues that the settlement agreement should be

set aside because he was denied due process and because he was under

duress when he signed the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant

claims that he was entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law but his

motion was ignored by the Administrative Judge (AJ) prior to the hearing.

Complainant also claims that he was under duress at the time the agreement

was signed. Specifically, complainant states that after the hearing, the

AJ brought up the issue of settlement and refused to allow complainant

the opportunity to seek legal advice prior to signing the agreement.

In addition, complainant states that the Administrative Judge (AJ)

issued a verbal order from the bench ordering the agency not to ask

for the complainant's medical records at the pre-offer stage of the

hiring process. Complainant claims that the agency breached the AJ's

oral order. Complainant also alleges breach in that the agency failed

to pay him the agreed upon amount within the specified time frame.

Finally, complainant states that the $2,500 provided in the agreement

is not a reasonable settlement amount.

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be

codified and hereinafter referred to 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 ascertaining the intent

of the parties with regard to the terms of a settlement agreement, the

Commission has generally relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December

2, 1991). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain

and unambiguous on its face, its meaning must be determined from the

four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence of

any nature. See Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co.,

730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

Complainant alleges that he was under duress when he signed the settlement

agreement. Specifically, complainant states that the Administrative Judge

(AJ) rushed him into signing the settlement agreement. Complainant also

states that he asked the AJ before he signed the agreement whether he

could take the agreement home and seek the advice of counsel. Complainant

claims that the AJ told him that he could not seek the advice of counsel.

Furthermore, complainant states that the agency refused to provide him

a copy of the hearing transcript which contains material evidence to

support his allegations of extreme emotional duress. The record does not

contain the hearing transcript which might indicate whether complainant

was under duress or coerced when he entered the settlement agreement.

Therefore, we shall remand the matter to determine whether complainant

was under duress (or coerced) at the time the January 14, 2000 settlement

agreement was signed. Finally, we note that because of our decision in

this case we will not address complainant's breach claim at this time.

Accordingly, we VACATE the agency's final decision and REMAND the matter

to the agency for further processing in accordance with the Order below.

ORDER

The agency shall supplement the record with a copy of the hearing

transcript and any other relevant evidence in determining whether

complainant was under duress (or coerced) at the time the agreement was

signed. The agency shall provide complainant with the opportunity to

submit any evidence indicating that the settlement agreement of January

14, 2000, was signed under duress (or coercion). The agency shall have

60 calendar days from the date this decision becomes final within which

to supplement the record and to issue a new final decision addressing

the validity of the settlement agreement, including the issues of whether

complainant was under duress at the time the agreement was entered into

or whether complainant was coerced into signing the settlement agreement.

A copy of the new final decision must be sent to the Compliance Officer

as listed herein.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the

complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a

civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior

to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a

civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph

below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407

and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the

underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �

2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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

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); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

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

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 17, 2000

__________________

Date

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.