0120103366
04-10-2012
Raul S. Hinojosa, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Raul S. Hinojosa,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120103366
Agency No. 1J-602-0025-10
DECISION
On August 12, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated July 30, 2010, 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
On May 21, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve his claim of discrimination. In pertinent part, the settlement agreement provided:
1. A meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. on a Thursday, no latter than June 18, 2010.
2. [Manager Maintenance Operations] will call and arrange the meeting and will attend the meeting.
3. The other parties who will be invited to the meeting are: [Complainant], [Employee A], [Supervisor A], [Supervisor B], and the other maintenance employees who are not scheduled on Saturday/Sunday.
4. The meeting cannot be held unless [Complainant], [Employee A], [Supervisor A], and [Supervisor B] are all in attendance.
5. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the rotation of overtime for maintenance employees.
Complainant provided the Agency with notice of an alleged breach of the settlement agreement in a letter to the Agency, dated June 17, 2010. In the breach notice, Complainant stated that "we" had a meeting with the Manager of Maintenance Operations, and two of the Maintenance Manager's supervisors, Supervisor A and Supervisor B. He also stated that before the meeting started, Supervisor B told him that the meeting would be 15 minutes long and asked Complainant then whether he wanted his answer before the meeting which Complainant took to mean that he was not going to get any overtime. Complainant stated that basically the three had their minds set not to discuss anything. In the breach notice, he also stated that Supervisor B stated that there was no overtime for those workers who had weekends off because they were not needed. Complainant also stated that Supervisor B blamed Employee A as a reason for no overtime.
In its decision, the Agency indicated that three management officials had been contacted.1 The Agency noted in its decision that Supervisor A stated that the reason why there was no overtime was explained. Supervisor A also stated that he was told the purpose of the meeting was to explain why there was no overtime on Saturdays and Sundays and this had been explained to Complainant and employees before. The Agency noted also in its decision that the Manager of Maintenance Operations stated that he reminded everyone of the purpose of the meeting and that the reason for no weekend overtime had been explained before. The Agency further noted in its decision that the Manager of Maintenance Operations stated that the intention of the meeting was to explain overtime opportunities. The Agency noted that Supervisor B stated that the initial intention of the meeting was to explain/justify the absence of overtime during the weekend which would have taken only two minutes at best. The Agency also noted that the meeting was scheduled for 15 minutes which allowed a reasonable time to answer questions.
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).
Upon review, the Commission finds that the instant agreement is void for lack of consideration. Generally, the adequacy or fairness of the consideration in a settlement agreement is not an issue, so 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 McNair v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July 1, 1997); Juhola v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01934032 (June 30, 1994) (citing Terracina v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992). Here, we find that the terms of the agreement to hold a meeting to discuss rotation of overtime with maintenance employees and the presence of Supervisors A and B does not confer on Complainant any benefit to which he would not have been entitled. In addition, in its decision finding no breach, the Agency noted that overtime had been explained before to Complainant. Further, we do not find a legal detriment to the Agency by its meeting with maintenance employees to discuss overtime. Therefore, we find that the settlement agreement is void. Where the promisor receives no benefit and the promisee suffers no detriment, the whole transaction is a nudum pactum. See Collins v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900082 (Apr. 26, 1990).
Even were we to find that there was adequate consideration, term five of the agreement which indicates the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the rotation of overtime is too ambiguous and vague to be enforceable. What the parties meant by rotation of overtime is not clear from the four corners of the agreement and the parties appear to have differing interpretations with respect to what should have occurred at the overtime meeting.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding it did not breach the settlement agreement is VACATED. The matter is REMANDED to the agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The Agency is ORDERED to resume processing of Complainant's complaint from the point where processing ceased. The Agency shall acknowledge to complainant that it has resumed processing of Complainant's complaint.
A copy of the agency letter of acknowledgement must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (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), 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 (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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
April 10, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record does not contain any statements from the Manager of Maintenance Operations, Supervisor A or Supervisor B and only the references in the Agency's decision.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120103366
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013