0120172230
02-06-2018
Fidela B,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Fidela B,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(New York Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172230
Agency No. 4B-070-0246-16
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 8, 2017, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked at the Agency. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On December 2, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Within the next 30 days, Agency Official 1 and Agency Official 2 will discuss the overtime in question. Upon review, if an adjustment needs to be processed, paperwork will be prepared.
(2) Complainant will receive copy of her 3999 within 2 weeks.
(3) Complainant will submit her 3971's in duplicate and Agency Official 3 will return in the prescribed time.
(4) Complainant will address any request to her supervisor. If her Supervisor is not around, she will address Agency Official 3.
(5) Agency Official 3 and Complainant agree to address each other by their last names.
By letter to the Agency dated April 18, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to review her overtime that was deleted by management. As such, she asserted that the Agency breached Provision (1) of the agreement.
In its May 8, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that the settlement agreement at issue was not enforceable for lack of adequate consideration. Therefore, the Agency voided the settlement agreement and reinstated Complainant's complaint, namely Agency No. 4B-070-0246-16, at the point when processing ceased.
This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant asserted that the complaint resolved by the settlement agreement was part of a series of problems she has had with Agency Official 3. She asserted that each agreement signed with Agency Official 3 has been breached in some way. She claimed that with the instant matter she provided the information for an adjustment to her overtime which was never made. She also alleged that additional overtime has been deleted from her records. The Agency asked that the Commission affirm its decision finding breach of the agreement at hand.
ANALYSIS
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). 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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 this case, however, we do not find that this Agreement to be valid and binding. The Commission is not generally concerned with the adequacy or fairness of the consideration in a settlement agreement, as long as some legal detriment in incurred as part of the bargain. When, however, one of the contracting parties incurs no legal detriment, the settlement will be set aside for lack of consideration. See Complainant v. Dep't of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130184 (Dec. 24, 2013).
We find the Agency has not provided consideration beyond what is normally expected of a Federal agency - to review Complainant's overtime record and to make corrections, if necessary. Therefore, we find this Agreement is void for lack of consideration.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency's decision. As such, we REMAND the matter in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER (E1016)
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency is ordered to reinstitute the underlying EEO complaint, referenced as 4B-070-0246-16 that was settled by the parties on December 2, 2016, and the Agency is ordered to continue processing pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 from the point where processing ceased as a result of the settlement agreement. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded complaint(s) within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this decision.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgement to Complainant, as well as the eventual final agency decision or order, must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below. The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0617)
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 in the digital format required by the Commission, and submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 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) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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.
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 (R0610)
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 (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. 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
February 6, 2018
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120172230
2
0120172230