0120152642
05-13-2016
Illiana S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Illiana S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120152642
Agency No. 1K-271-0012-14
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated June 29, 2015, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a July 29, 2014 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
On July 29, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter which was pursued through the EEO complaint process. The July 29, 2014 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
In full settlement of all claims by the complainant against the Postal Service in this case, the Postal Service shall pay the complainant a lump sum of $300.00. It is understood and agreed that this sum represents non-wage compensatory damages. The Postal Service shall not withhold from this amount, although it is understood that this payment is subject to taxation and will be reported to the IRS on Form 1099-MISC.
In addition, the settlement agreement contained the following provision:
I am fully aware that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, is binding on both parties. Should I believe that the Postal Service has failed to adhere to the stipulations contained in this agreement for any reason not attributed to my acts or conduct, must notify the Manager, EEO Compliance and Appeals, located in my area, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 calendar days of the alleged non-compliance. (Employee at Postal Service Headquarters or Headquarters Field Units, and employee of the Inspection Service should notify the EEO Appeals Review Specialist at Postal Service Headquarters). I may include in my statement of noncompliance a request that the terms of the settlement agreement are to be specifically implemented or, alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. The Postal Service will respond to my request in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504.
By letter to the Agency dated May 28, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Dispute Resolution Mediator (Mediator) forged the settlement agreement through the following actions: the signature in the settlement agreement was not hers; the date next to her signature (June 29, 2014) pre-dated [Mediator's] initial contact with her; the settlement agreement did not contain date or time stamps showing when it was sent; and the two pages of the settlement agreement are both labeled as "p.1" instead of "p.1" and "p.2."
In its June 29, 2015 final decision, the Agency found no breach. The Agency indicated that following the signing of the settlement agreement, Complainant was paid in the amount of $300.00. Moreover, the Agency determined that Complainant's acceptance of the $300.00 constitutes ratification of the settlement agreement, thereby validating the agreement, although Complainant argued that the subject agreement is invalid. The Agency therefore found that the settlement agreement was not void.
The record contains a copy of a letter from the Supervisor, Administrative Support, dated August 12, 2014 to Complainant. Therein, the Supervisor stated "please find enclosed your check in the amount of $300.00 satisfying the stipulations of your settlement agreement for EEO Case Number 1K-271-0012-14." The record also contains a copy of a check dated August 6, 2014, made out to Complainant in the amount of $300.00.
Further, the record contains a United Postal Service Signature Confirmation Receipt (receipt). In the receipt, Complainant's Post Office box address of record is identified and was signed by a party with the same last name as Complainant's last name. The receipt also includes a tracking number which indicated that delivery was made on August 15, 2014.
In response to Complainant's appeal, the Agency argues that Complainant's claim of breach was untimely raised. Specifically, the Agency noted that the settlement agreement provides an Agency obligation that Complainant would be paid a lump sum in the amount of $300.00. The Agency noted that on August 15, 2014, Complainant received the lump sum payment. However, the Agency determined that Complainant waited approximately ten months to allege breach of the instant agreement. The Agency indicated her claim of breach on May 28, 2015 was well beyond the 30 days of when Complainant should have been aware of a breach. The Agency stated even assuming, for the sake of argument only, Complainant was not immediately made aware of the fully executed agreement on July 29, 2014, Agency management find that she became well aware when she was mailed a check for $300.00 per the terms of the settlement agreement.
Regarding claims that that the settlement agreement was forged by the Mediator, the Agency found such a claim to be a false accusation. Specifically, the Agency argues that according to the Mediator, she stated that she received the settlement agreement from Complainant with the June date. The Agency states that the settlement agreement contains a fax transmission data citing Complainant's name and phone number as the transmitting party. The Agency determined that this document supports the notion that Complainant herself signed and dated the settlement agreement which she then faxed to the Mediator. Upon review, the Mediator signed and dated the form and submitted the hard copy to the EEO office which was received on July 31, 2014.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
As an initial matter, we find that Complainant has not shown that the settlement agreement should be void. The provisions of the settlement agreement were clearly stated. In exchange for Complainant's withdrawal of the complaint, Complainant received a lump sum payment in the amount of $300.00. We find that this constituted adequate consideration. Further, we find that the terms of the agreement are not vague.
We acknowledge that Complainant has focused upon her dissatisfaction with the Mediator's handling of her case. For instance, Complainant questioned how the Mediator had knowledge of her complaint before speaking to her. Complainant stated that the Mediator "broke the law and I want to be made whole." Complainant further stated "questioning how did my signature get on the paperwork of agreement before (I) even spoke with [Mediator] on 07/28/14 (email proves this 7/22/14)...highlighted areas in paperwork will show similarities in others signatures on dates. Because I [complainant] didn't sign this agreement on 06/29/14. A signature would have signature there isn't any on page highlighted."
Moreover, Complainant stated "cashing a $300 check for #6 charges doesn't settle all stipulations of 1-5 charges. [Mediator] has lied, whereas she had already filed a formal agreement before this date of her email...this is an invalid agreement due to fraudulent acts..."
Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that the charges regarding forgery, and various purported inconsistencies as identified, above are unsupported by the record, and are merely bare assertions.
The Agency's letter of determination findings relating to the validity of the subject agreement, as well as no breach, AFFIRMED.2
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (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. 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
May 13, 2016
__________________
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 Because we affirm the Agency's finding of no breach of the July 29, 2014 settlement agreement, we find it unnecessary to address alternative dismissal grounds (i.e. whether Complainant's claim of breach was timely filed).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120152642
2
0120152642
6
0120152642