0120070611
03-10-2009
William Fairfax, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
William Fairfax,
Complainant,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070611
Agency No. 050038SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission stating that the agency
was not in compliance with the terms of the July 6, 2006 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.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Agency agrees to change its records to reflect that
[complainant] voluntarily resigned from, rather than that he was
terminated from, his position as a Claims Authorizer Trainee.
(2) The Agency will offer [complainant] an excepted service
appointment to a GS-5, Accounting and Remittance Technician position, or
an equivalent, external GS-5 position...in Processing Center Operations,
as soon as such position is available, but no later than October 1, 2007.
Pursuant to the excepted service appointment, [complainant] will serve
a two-year trial period.
(3) The Agency will pay attorney's fees via check in the amount of
$1000.00 to [complainant's] counsel.
(4) The Agency will provide a standard, neutral reference should
[complainant] apply for other positions at the Agency.
In his appeal, complainant alleged that the agency was in breach of the
settlement agreement, and requested that his complaint be reinstated.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency denied him due
process when, on the day his hearing was scheduled to take place,
the court reporter failed to arrive on time. Complainant stated that
"the anxiety which resulted from the [agency's] untimely provision of a
court reporter...caused faulty decision-making action by [complainant]."
Complainant also alleged that the agency breached the agreement when his
healthcare provider was changed from Blue Cross Blue Shield to Keystone
Healthcare.
In its brief in response to complainant's allegation of breach, the
agency states that it has satisfied all of the provisions of the July 6,
2006 settlement agreement. The agency also states that complainant's
allegations are outside the scope of the settlement agreement at issue.
Upon review of this matter, we first note that complainant improperly
directed this matter to the Commission before first notifying the EEO
Director in writing, as required by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). Nevertheless,
we determine that the matters raised by complainant can be adequately
addressed by the Commission at this juncture, and exercise our discretion
to do so.
Next, we turn to complainant's claim that the agreement is void because
he signed it under duress. According to complainant, the duress was
caused by a delay in obtaining a court reporter which placed him in a
heightened state of anxiety. If duress or coercion occur during the
formation of the contract, assent to the agreement is impossible, and
the Commission will find the contract void. See Shimon v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990). In the instant
case, the Commission determines that complainant has not met his burden
of establishing that he was coerced or that any misrepresentation,
misinterpretation, or mistake occurred. The record clearly shows that
complainant was represented at all times by an attorney and that he and
his representative reviewed and understood the terms of the agreement and
accepted it in its entirety. Here, it appears that complainant is merely
dissatisfied with the agreement. A settlement agreement made in good
faith and otherwise valid will not be set aside simply because it appears
that one of the parties made a bad bargain. See Miller v. Department of
the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05960622 (December 5, 1997).
Turning finally to the allegation of breach, 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 O 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 Engineering Services Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find that complainant has not shown that
the agency breached any of the terms of the settlement agreement at
issue. The record shows that the agency satisfied all of the terms and
conditions of the agreement as written. We also note that complainant's
allegations with respect to his health insurance are outside the scope
of the settlement agreement at issue. Accordingly, we find no breach
of settlement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
March 10, 2009
Date
2
0120070611
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 77960
Washington, D.C. 20013
4
0120070611