0120072200
09-27-2007
Earl C. Cates, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Earl C. Cates,
Complainant,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072200
Agency No. 99-0451-SSA
DECISION
JURISDICTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 22, 2007, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the September 7, 2004 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Complainant agrees that by signing this Settlement Agreement,
he withdraws the instant complaint of discrimination filed against SSA
and agrees to its dismissal with prejudice. Further, he agrees that by
signing this Settlement Agreement, he withdraws any other complaints,
grievances, or administrative or judicial actions that he has already
filed that are related to or arise out of his/her employment with the
Agency prior to his April 25, 2004 appointment as an Administrative Law
Judge and agrees to their dismissal with prejudice. The complainant
represents that no other complaints, grievances or administrative or
judicial actions with respect to the events underlying these actions
will be filed with or submitted to any administrative agency arbitrator,
court, or legislative body. Additionally, the Complainant represents
that he will not file a complaint, grievance or administrative or
judicial action against the Agency, or any officer or employee thereof,
with respect to any action that is related to or arises out of his/her
employment with the Agency and that occurred prior to April 25, 2004,
when he was appointed to an Administrative Law Judge position.
(2) The agency agrees to pay the Complainant a lump sum
payment of $10,000.00.
(3) The Complainant alleges in the above-captioned case that
the Agency discriminated against him on account of his age,
sex, religion, and disability status, and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity. The Complainant alleges in another complaint,
Agency Case No. 03-0464-SSA, currently pending investigation
that the Agency discriminated against him on account of his
age, sex, disability status, and in reprisal for prior EEO
activity. The Complainant agrees to withdraw his complaints
in the above-captioned case and Agency Case No. 03-0464-SSA,
and agrees to dismissal of those complaints with prejudice.
The complainant also agrees to withdraw any other formal or
informal complaints of discrimination or reprisal which he
filed or may raise on or before April 25, 2004, and agrees to
dismissal of all such complaints with prejudice.
(5) This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the parties, and here are no other representations or obligations,
except for those enumerated above. This Settlement Agreement may be
amended only in writing and any such amendment must be signed by the
parties signing this Settlement Agreement, or by their successors.
By letter to the agency dated January 29, 2007, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and that the
agency fraudulently induced him to settle his complaint, SSA-03-0464.
He claims that the agency's actions were fraudulent because the agency
did not advise him that its investigation was completed before he signed
the agreement. Complainant asserts that the agency paid no additional
consideration for settling the second complaint. Complainant alleged
that he agreed to settle his complaints because the agency represented
that doing so would be a good faith gesture in being considered for
another position as an ALJ. After signing the agreement, complainant
states that his application for a vacant ALJ position was turned down
in favor of another candidate. Complainant requests that his complaint
SSA-03-0464 be reopened and that he be allowed to pursue his claim.
In its February 22, 2007 FAD, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement was fairly negotiated and signed by the parties. The agency
points out that the agreement explicitly references the investigation
of SSA-03-0464 and that complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint
and dismiss it with prejudice. As consideration for withdrawing his
complaints, the agreement requires the agency to pay complainant
$10,000.00. The agency determined that there is no evidence that
complainant had inferior knowledge at the time or that it took advantage
of him in reaching an agreement. The agency argues that the parties'
written agreement contains all of the evidence that governs the parties'
intention and no extrinsic evidence may be considered.
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 Hyon 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).
In the instant case, the agreement specifically provided that complainant
would withdraw and dismiss his complaints, including SSA-03-0464.
Complainant alleges that he was misled into settling the complaint because
he did not know that the investigation of his complaint would soon to
be completed. That is, had he known the contents of the investigation,
he would not have settled his complaint. The Commission finds however,
that the plain meaning of the agreement indicates that the parties
specifically bargained for complainant to dismiss his complaint thereby
ending the investigation. Complainant agreed to this in exchange for
monetary compensation. These terms were specifically made a part of
the written agreement set forth above. The Commission is not persuaded
that complainant, an administrative law judge, was unaware of the terms
of his bargain or that these terms were misrepresented to him. We are
also not persuaded that he was unaware of the status of the agency's
investigation when he agreed to withdraw his complaint. Finally, we
find no evidence that the agency violated any of its obligations set
forth in the agreement. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
Complainant further asserts that he was misled about the agency's
intentions to consider him for a vacant ALJ position if he, in turn,
agreed to dismiss his complaints. The Commission has long held that
where misrepresentation of the character or essential terms of a proposed
contract occurs, assent to the contract is impossible and there is no
contract. Shuman v. Department of the Navy, 059000744 (July 20, 1990).
The record indicates that, subsequent to execution of the settlement
agreement, complainant applied for and was considered for an ALJ position.
The fact that complainant was not selected for the position does not
constitute evidence that the terms of the settlement were misrepresented
through fraud. Other than his own statements, complainant offers no
supporting evidence that his selection for the ALJ position was meant
to be a term of the agreement but was omitted through fraud. Moreover,
we note that the settlement agreement expressly states that, "[t]here
are no other representations or obligations, except for those enumerated
above." There being no persuasive evidence to support complainant's
claim that the agreement is voidable, because of fraud in the inducement,
the Commission finds the agreement is valid and enforceable.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds the parties settlement
agreement to be valid and enforceable. Further, complainant failed
to demonstrate that the agency breached the agreement, therefore, the
Commission affirms the agency's FAD.
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
___9/27/07_______________
Date
2
0120072200
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120072200