0120112195
02-24-2012
Alecia Williams, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Alecia Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112195
Agency No. 1G-708-0010-10
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 5, 2011, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this settlement agreement,
Complainant worked as a Part-Time Flexible Mail Handler at the Agency’s
General Mail Facility, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Complainant contacted
an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process and on
July 29, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that:
Effective July 31, 2010, Ms. Williams will be a PTF Mail Handler
currently awaiting PTR position in Clerk Craft. Management will continue
to communicate with Ms. Williams.
By letter to the Agency dated December 14, 2010, 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 there had been a vacant PTR position since July 2010, and
the Agency failed to place her in the position as required by the terms
of the settlement agreement. Complainant further stated that management
had one week to contact her with respect to this vacant position.
Complainant contacted the Agency again on March 8, 2011, stating that
it had been given sufficient time to investigate her December 14, 2010
allegation of breach but management failed to address its non-compliance
with the terms of the agreement.
In its May 5, 2011 response to Complainant’s allegation of breach,
the Agency concluded that Complainant knew of the breach on July 29-30,
2010, but failed to contact the Agency until December 14, 2010, which
is well beyond the 30-day time limit for raising allegations of breach.
Accordingly, the Agency stated that Complainant’s allegation was
untimely and her case would not be re-opened.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends that the agreement did not specify any
time frame in which it would place her into the position at issue and
that she was informed by Agency officials that the Agency had up to a
year to satisfy the terms of the agreement. Additionally, Complainant
contends that she did not become aware until December 14, 2010, that
there had been a vacant position which was awarded to another employee.
Complainant states that she contacted the Agency and informed management
of her allegation of breach immediately upon learning of the vacant
position. Finally, Complainant contends that the Agency continually
failed to respond to her requests for information and updates as to the
status of her placement into a PTR position. Complainant also argues
that the agreement should be set aside because it was based on a mutual
mistake of material fact.
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 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).
When a settlement agreement lacks adequate consideration, it is
unenforceable. See Collins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990). 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. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July
1, 1997). Also, a settlement agreement that is too vague to enforce is
invalid. See Bibb-Merritt v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120072689 (November 13, 2009).
Applying the above legal principles, we find that the settlement
agreement at issue is invalid due to lack of consideration and for being
too vague to enforce. Nothing was promised beyond what the Agency is
already obligated to do, i.e., there was no legal detriment by the
Agency. Specifically, with respect to the portion of the agreement
which states that “management will continue to communicate with
[Complainant]”, we find that such provision provides Complainant nothing
more than that to which she is already entitled as an employee. See Brown
v. United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 020090822 (April 1, 2009)
(agency agreement to address Complainant “as all other employees in
a professional manner” lacked consideration).
Further, the statement that Complainant “will be a PTF Mail Handler
currently awaiting PTR position in Clerk Craft” contains no substantive
Agency obligation and provides, at best, only an illusory benefit to
Complainant. Specifically, we find that the Agency has set no time frame
for placing Complainant into a PTR position, nor does it specifically
state that Complainant will even be entitled to such a position when one
becomes available. We therefore find that the settlement agreement is void
for vagueness. See Mullen v. Dept. of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05890349
(May 18, 1989). When voiding an agreement, the parties are returned
to the status quo at the time the agreement was entered. Accordingly,
the Commission voids the settlement agreement and reinstates the settled
matter.
CONCLUSION
The Commission VACATES the Agency’s final decision. The Commission
hereby voids the settlement agreement and REMANDS this case so that the
underlying EEO complaint may be reinstated for further processing in
accordance with the ORDER herein.
ORDER
The Agency shall resume the processing of the Complainant’s settled
EEO claims from the point processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part
1614. Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency
shall notify Complainant in writing that it has reinstated her EEO
claims. The Agency must provide a copy of this notice to the Compliance
Officer as referenced herein.
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
February 24, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120112195
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120112195