0120140205
08-11-2016
Wilbert W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Wilbert W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140205
Hearing No. 48020110062X
Agency No. 4F926009511
DECISION
On July 22, 2013, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's June 19, 2013, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether Complainant was coerced by the Agency into withdrawing his EEO complaint and entering into a settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency's Upland Post Office in Upland, California. On March 30, 2011, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of reprisal for filing two prior EEO cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when:
1. On April 7, 2011, he was issued a Letter of Suspension, despite being on authorized emergency leave;2
2. Since April 16, 2011, he has been subjected to a hostile work environment when various supervisors have instructed him to work in an improper and unsafe manner, and threatened him with discipline and removal; and
3. On June 14, 2011, he was issued a Notice of Removal for Failure to Follow Instructions.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew his request because the parties entered into a settlement agreement on October 26, 2011. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Complainant's removal was reduced to a 14-day suspension, and Complainant signed a notice to withdraw his EEO complaint on October 26, 2011. The form that Complainant signed, PS Form 2564-C Withdrawal of Complaint of Discrimination, indicated that Complainant voluntarily withdrew his formal EEO complaint in its entirety. The form Complainant signed included language that:
I fully understand[s] that by withdrawing the complaint, I am waving my rights to any further appeal of the allegation(s) through the EEO Process. I further stipulate that my withdrawal did not result from threat, coercion, intimidation, promise or inducement.
On November 14, 2011, Complainant filed a motion to reinstate his complaint with the AJ, claiming that he signed the withdrawal form under coercion and duress. Complainant alleged that the Agency representative threatened that if he did not sign the form, he would not get his job back. Complainant also argued that he did not enter into a "global" settlement agreement in which he agreed to withdraw his EEO complaint. Complainant claimed that his union representative (UR) signed the settlement agreement, and that the UR was not his representative for his EEO complaint, and that the settlement agreement only settled his grievance. The Agency filed an opposition on December 5, 2011, arguing that Complainant had not presented any evidence of coercion. On December 15, 2011, Complainant filed a response to the Agency's opposition reasserting his arguments.
On December 27, 2011, the AJ issued an order dismissing Complainant's case based on his withdrawal, and the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's order on December 30, 2011. Complainant appealed the Agency's final order to the Commission's Office of Federal Operations (OFO). On July 22, 2013, OFO issued a decision vacating the Agency's final order, and remanding the case back to the Agency to conduct a supplemental investigation into whether Complainant was coerced into withdrawing his EEO complaint; and to issue a final decision on this issue.
On June 19, 2013, the Agency issued its final decision finding that Complainant had not shown that he was coerced into withdrawing his EEO complaint. The Agency found that a Labor Relations Specialist (LRS) negotiated the terms of Complainant's settlement with the UR, and did not speak directly to Complainant. The LRS stated that while she spoke with the UR on the phone, Complainant may have walked into the room. She stated that she informed the UR that he could talk to Complainant and get back to her with their decision. She stated that she did not coerce Complainant into signing the withdrawal form, but that the UR was the one who asked him to sign it, which he did. The Agency noted that the UR did not respond to its request for an affidavit; and found that the Agency provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions, and that Complainant had not shown that the reasons were pretextual.
The Agency also found that Complainant had not shown that it discriminated against him based on reprisal for prior EEO activity for claims 1 and 3. The Agency found that the management officials articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for claims 1 and 3, and that Complainant had not shown that the proffered reasons were pretext for discrimination. For claim 2, the Agency also found that Complainant had not shown that the complained of conduct was based on his protected class; that it was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment; or that there was a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. Accordingly, the Agency found that Complainant had not shown that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on reprisal for prior EEO activity.
Complainant filed the instant appeal, along with a statement in support of his appeal. The Agency filed an opposition brief on August 16, 2013.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argues that he has established a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, and that material facts are in dispute. Specifically, Complainant alleges that he and the UR were on a speaker phone during the conversation with the LRS. Complainant states that this was the only meeting that took place where he discussed the settlement agreement and the withdrawal of his EEO complaint. Complainant requests that the Agency's final decision be reversed, and that his complaint be reinstated.
The Agency argues that Complainant has provided no evidence showing that he was coerced into withdrawing his EEO complaint. Contrary to its statement in its final decision, the Agency notes that the record does in fact contain a statement from the UR, which does not support Complainant's coercion allegation. Additionally, the LRS stated that she did not speak directly to Complainant. As such, the Agency argues that Complainant's withdrawal should stand, and the Agency's final decision should be affirmed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
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 comers 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).
Regarding Complainant's argument that he was coerced, we note that a settlement agreement may be voided if one of the parties establishes that assent was obtained by duress or coercion. See Mosley v. St. Louis Sw. R.R., 634 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1981); Hodge v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01954577 (December 7, 1995). In addition, misrepresentation as to facts relevant to the complaint may cause the Commission to set aside a settlement agreement. See Wolf v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900417 (June 14, 1990). In this case, Complainant offers nothing beyond his bare assertions to support his claim of coercion.
In his statement, the UR stated that he did not know if the LRS made any of the alleged statements to Complainant because he was not present during a conversation between the two where they discussed his EEO complaint. However, Complainant states that there was only one meeting in which he discussed the settlement agreement and withdrawal of his EEO complaint, and that he and the UR were on the phone with the LRS. The LRS stated that while she spoke with the UR on the phone, Complainant may have walked into the room. She stated that she informed the UR that he could talk to Complainant and get back to her with their decision. She stated that she did not coerce Complainant into signing the withdrawal form, but that the UR was the one who asked him to sign it, which he did. We find that Complainant has simply not presented any persuasive evidence establishing that the LRS coerced him into withdrawing his EEO complaint.3
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's finding that Complainant has not shown that he was coerced into withdrawing his EEO complaint.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 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. The requests 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 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
__8/11/16________________
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 Complainant was previously approved for leave on March 16; had a non-scheduled work day on March 17; and approved leave on March 18, 2011. Complainant requested annual leave for March 19, which was not approved; had approved leave from March 21, through March 24; and had non-scheduled work days on March 25, and 26, 2011.
3 We will not address the Agency's findings on the merits of Complainant's claims of reprisal discrimination because we find that these claims have been withdrawn.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140205
2
0120140205