01A20305
10-25-2001
Corazon Dela Vega, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Finance & Accounting Service), Agency.
Corazon Dela Vega v. Department of Defense (Defense Finance and Accounting
Service)
01A20305
October 25, 2001
.
Corazon Dela Vega,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Finance & Accounting Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A120305
Agency No. DFAS-PSO-IN-00-006
DECISION
Complainant filed a formal complaint of discrimination on April 3,
2000, in which she alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the
bases of race (Asian/Pacific Islander), national origin (Philippines),
and sex (female) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. On August 31,
2000, complainant's complaint was resolved by the parties pursuant to
a settlement agreement. On October 6, 2000, complainant received a
response from the agency dismissing her request to void the settlement
agreement. Complainant subsequently filed an appeal with this Commission,
claiming that she was coerced, intimidated and pressured into signing
it.<1>
On March 9, 2001, this Commission administratively closed the appeal
on the grounds that the agency was not put on notice of complainant's
allegations of noncompliance, as required by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
See EEOC Appeal No. 01A10730. In a letter to the Commission, dated March
27, 2001, complainant contended that she had, in fact, submitted evidence
that she notified the agency of her allegations on several occasions.<2>
The Commission has determined that the administrative closure was issued
in error.
Accordingly, the Commission has re-docketed the appeal as EEO Appeal
No. 01A20305, and accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
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 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 O 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).
The record reveals that the settlement agreement provided, in pertinent
part:
(2)(a) Reprisal action will not be taken against Complainant.
(b) The promotion to a GS-0510-09 effective November 7, 1999 for the
complainant will be retroactively adjusted to August 1, 1999 (to include
retroactive pay entitlements).
(c) The complainant will receive priority consideration for a GS-0510-11
at DFAS San Bernardino Depot Maintenance Accounting Group (DMAG).
Denver Customer Support Unit (CSU) will insure the complainant's
application will be accepted when applying for the GS-0510-11 position
without a current copy of a SF 50 (Notification of Personnel Action).
By electronic mail to the agency the following day, complainant alleged
that she was pressured and intimidated by the Counsel for the agency.
Specifically, on appeal, complainant alleged the following:
(1) She agreed, in good faith, to take part in mediation, but the
agency's representatives negotiated in bad faith;
(2) Several times during the course of the mediation, the Counsel for
the agency bullied, belittled, humiliated, embarrassed and harassed her,
and treated her as if she were stupid;
(3) The Counsel for the agency asked her �Can you read?� which she
assumes was a reference to her national origin;
(4) The Counsel for the agency postured himself in a very intimidating
manner, making her wonder �what is going to happen now?� and causing
her to cry;
(5) At one point she asked that the mediation stop, however it
nevertheless continued;
(6) After eight hours of mediation she was physically exhausted,
mentally tired, stressed out from crying and tired of being humiliated,
and only then did she reluctantly sign the agreement.
The Commission will find the contract void if coercion, misrepresentation,
misinterpretation, or mistake occur during the formation of the contract,
making assent to the agreement impossible. See Shuman v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990). This 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 convey an intention to cause
harm or loss. A complainant's bare assertions will not justify a finding
of coercion. Lenihan v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05960605
(December 5, 1995).
In the instant case, complainant has submitted no persuasive evidence
of coercion other than her bare assertions. Nor has she demonstrated
that her assent to the agreement was induced by any improper threat. We,
therefore, cannot find that complainant was coerced into signing the
settlement agreement, particularly since the agreement specifically
states that it was entered into �knowingly and voluntarily,� and that
complainant �has read the Mediated Settlement Agreement and voluntarily
agrees to accept its provisions.�
Accordingly, the agency's decision not to void the settlement agreement
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 25, 2001
__________________
Date
1 Complainant also filed a prior appeal
regarding allegations that, during the mediation session that resulted
in the parties' signing the settlement agreement, she was subjected to
discriminatory harassment. The Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal
of the complaint. See EEOC Appeal No. 01A12157 (May 18, 2001), request
to reconsider denied, EEOC Request No. 05A10806 (September 20, 2001).
2 In her March 27, 2001 letter, complainant also expressed her desire to
appeal another decision issued by the agency regarding other allegations.
See EEO Appeal No. 01A13583. On October 18, 2001, the Commission
administratively closed that appeal, on the grounds that it was premature.