01a01941
08-17-2000
Jan E. McGuire, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jan E. McGuire v. United States Postal Service
01A01941
August 17, 2000
.
Jan E. McGuire,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01941
Agency No. 4C-164-0015-99
DECISION
Complainant filed the present appeal with the Commission alleging that
the agency had breached the settlement agreement entered into by the
parties.<1>
Complainant and the agency entered into a settlement agreement on December
10, 1999. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[The agency] agrees to move [complainant] from Level 11 to Level
13 on the pay schedule effective pay period number 2 of the year
2000. [Complainant] will receive an 8% pay increase. [The agency] agrees
to change [complainant's] F.Y. 1998 merit to �Far Exceeds� and agrees
to pay [complainant] the lump sum of $381.00 on or before pay period
number 2 of the year 2000.
On December 13, 1999, complainant was informed by the Manager of Post
Office Operations (MO1) that the settlement could not stand.
By e-mail to the agency dated December 16, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the December 10, 1999 settlement agreement and
requested that the agency fully implement the terms of the agreement.
When the agency did not respond to complainant's letter of noncompliance,
complainant filed an appeal with the Commission.
The record contains a letter from the EEO Counselor which states that
MO1 did not have the authority to offer the settlement into which the
parties entered.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 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 Commission has previously held that a signed settlement agreement,
in order to be valid and enforceable, must be executed by an authorized
representative of the agency. Jacobsohn v. Department of Health and
Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05930689 (June 2, 1994) (citing Soliz
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05901010 (October
25, 1990)). However, in order to void the agreement, the agency must
present evidence indicating that the signatory to the agreement lacked
the authority to agree to its terms. See id.
Here, the agency has presented no evidence indicating that MO1 was not
authorized to bind the agency to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The agency has submitted no internal regulations or procedures showing
that MO1 was not authorized to enter into settlement agreements
with complainants, or was authorized to agree only to certain terms.
Furthermore, this is not a case where MO1 has agreed to a settlement
provision that exceeds the agency's legal authority. See, e.g., Thompson
v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910892
(March 11, 1992) (affirming the removal of a settlement agreement
provision awarding complainant attorney's fees for the administrative
processing of his complaints under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA) because such fees are not contemplated under the statute).
Because the agency failed to provide evidence showing that MO1 lacked
the authority to agree to this provision on his own, the Commission
finds that the agency has not met its burden of demonstrating that this
provision is invalid. See Jacobsohn, supra.
Furthermore, we note that complainant submitted evidence demonstrating
that MO1 had apparent authority to enter into a settlement agreement.
The Commission has defined apparent authority, citing the Second
Restatement of the Law of Agency, as "'the power to affect the legal
relations of another person [or entity] by transactions with third
persons, professedly as agent for the other, arising from and in
accordance with the other's manifestations to such third person.'�
Mitchell v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01934907
(February 18, 1994). In the present case, complainant entered into
mediation through a formal agency program named REDRESS. Present at the
mediation conference was complainant, complainant's representative, MO1,
and the mediator. The settlement agreement was signed by all parties
on December 10, 1999. Complainant claimed that MO1 acted as if he had
the power, and permission, to bind the agency to all provisions of the
settlement agreement. Thus, we find that the evidence demonstrates
that MO1 purported to have the authority to enter into the settlement
agreement. From the record, it appears that complainant entered into
the agreement relying on MO1's apparent authority to agree to its terms.
See id. Moreover, the Commission finds this reliance quite reasonable,
as MO1 was in attendance at the REDRESS mediation as the management
official regarding complainant's EEO complaint. The Commission therefore
finds that MO1 had the apparent authority to enter into this agreement.
The Commission therefore finds that the settlement agreement in this
case is valid and binding on both parties. There is no indication
that the agency complied with the agreement. Furthermore, the agency
effectively stated that it will not implement the terms of the agreement.
Where, as here, the Commission has determined that an agency is not in
compliance with a valid settlement agreement and the noncompliance is
not attributable to acts or conduct of the complainant, we may order
compliance with the agreement or we may order that the complaint be
reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). Therefore, we find that the agency has breached
the settlement agreement and we shall order the agency to implement the
settlement agreement.
The agency's decision was improper and is REVERSED and the matter is
REMANDED to the agency for further processing in accordance with the
Order below.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final
the agency shall specifically implement the terms of the December 10,
1999 settlement agreement retroactively. The agency shall supplement
the record with documentation showing that the agency has implemented
the terms of the settlement agreement. Within thirty (30) days of the
date this decision becomes final the agency shall issue a decision
to complainant informing her that the agency has complied with the
settlement agreement. A copy of the decision must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced herein.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1199)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to
an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the
complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall
be paid by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of
fees to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
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
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 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
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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.