01A33997_r
12-02-2003
Linda J. Crumley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Linda J. Crumley v. United States Postal Service
01A33997
December 2, 2003
.
Linda J. Crumley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A33997
Agency No. 4B-060-0022-03
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated May 22, 2003, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the November 13, 2002 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) We as management officials acknowledge and appreciate the concerns
that were presented by the counselee and also her medical problem.
(2) All parties agree to employ better communication and understanding
regard[ing] request[s] for sick leave from all PTFs, and
(3) To assign start times and work schedules as fairly and equitably as
possible among all PTFs.
By letter to the agency dated May 19, 2003, 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 fairly assign starting times among
the PTF carriers. Complainant alleges that her starting times are later
than male PTFs and thus she works less hours than males.
In its May 22, 2003 decision, the agency concluded that it did not
breach the settlement agreement. The agency stated that as complainant
is one of the junior PTFs, she is rarely granted a �hold down� which
guarantees a schedule of eight hours a day. Also, the agency stated
that complainant is utilized to cover collections at night which would
require her supervisor to have her start later than other PTFs in order to
assure that she is not scheduled for overtime. The agency acknowledged
that the language used in provision (3) of the agreement was vague but
noted that the agreement did not guarantee that senior PTFs would not
be granted �hold downs� since this would violate the National Agreement.
On appeal, complainant reiterates her position that the settlement
agreement has been breached. She clarifies that she is not challenging
the higher seniority PTFs and their ability to get �hold downs.� Rather,
complainant states that she gets later start times than male PTFs who
do not have seniority over her.
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).
In the present case, we find that the settlement agreement is void
for lack of consideration. Generally, the adequacy or fairness
of the consideration in a settlement agreement is not at issue,
as long as some legal detriment is incurred as part of the bargain.
However, when one of the contracting parties incurs no legal detriment,
the settlement agreement will be set aside for lack of consideration.
See MacNair v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July 1,
1997); Juhola v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01934032 (June
30, 1994) (citing Terracina v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992). Here, we find that provision
1 provides no consideration and provisions 2 and 3 are too vague to
enforce. Furthermore, the agreement fails to confer on complainant any
actual benefit that she was not already entitled to as a matter of law.
Therefore, we find that complainant received no consideration for
withdrawing her complaint and the settlement agreement is void.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach is VACATED and
the matter is REMANDED for further processing in accordance with the
Order below.
ORDER
Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall
resume processing of the settled matter from the point where processing
ceased pursuant to Part 1614 Regulations. The agency shall, within 30
days of the date this decision becomes final, acknowledge in writing
to complainant that it has reinstated and resumed processing of the
settled matter.
A copy of the agency letter of acknowledgment must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 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 (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 (R0900)
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
December 2, 2003
__________________
Date