04a50002
02-23-2005
Geraldine Keith, Petitioner, v. Michael S. Schwartz, Chair, Railroad Retirement Board, Agency.
Geraldine Keith v. Railroad Retirement Board
04A50002
February 23, 2005
.
Geraldine Keith,
Petitioner,
v.
Michael S. Schwartz,
Chair,
Railroad Retirement Board,
Agency.
Petition No. 04A50002
Request No. 05980187
Appeal No. 01965162
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On February 26, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) docketed a petition for clarification from the agency
requesting clarification of our decision set forth in Geraldine Keith
v. Railroad Retirement Board, EEOC Request No. 05980187 (October 19,
2000). This petition for clarification is accepted by the Commission
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �?1614.503(c).
The record reveals that complainant and the agency entered into a
settlement agreement memorialized in a memorandum dated April 4, 1996.
The settlement agreement provided that:
[Complainant's supervisor] has agreed to provide [complainant]
with a letter of apology for using profanity in the course of the
confrontation that occurred on March 5, 1996. The letter will also
include an assurance that outbursts such as the one which occurred on
March 5 will not happen again.
Complainant's supervisor issued an April 1, 1996 memorandum to complainant
in which he wrote:
I wish to apologize to you for using some �curse� words during our heated
conversation regarding sick leave, which occurred on March 1, 1996.
This was inappropriate and I'll make an effort to refrain from using
any �curse� words in our future conversations.
Complainant's supervisor issued a second letter dated May 22, 1996,
in which he stated:
I apologize for using curse words during or after our conversation
of March 1, 1996, regarding sick leave notification and scheduling.
My loss of composure was not appropriate.
I hope this will clarify my earlier apology. You are a valuable part
of our work-group here. I have always thought so and continue to
believe so. I will not use curse words in our future conversations.
Thereafter, complainant alleged that the April 1, 1996 memorandum by
her supervisor was insufficient and that the agency had breached the
agreement. The agency issued a decision on May 29, 1996, finding that
it had not breached the settlement agreement. Complainant appealed the
agency's final decision finding no breach to the Commission. In EEOC
Appeal No. 01965162 (October 10, 1997), the Commission noted that
complainant did not allege that she did not enter into the settlement.
Upon review of the record and statements submitted on appeal, the
Commission found that the April 1, 1996 memorandum satisfied the
settlement agreement
On December 9, 1997, complainant filed a request for reconsideration of
the Commission's previous decision. With regard to the timeliness of
her request for reconsideration, complainant stated that her attorney
did not receive a copy of the Commission's appellate decision and she
stated that she received the decision on her �way out of town to be with
a sick relative� and she requested an extension of time. Additionally,
for the first time, complainant claimed that she was �mentally and
emotionally ill� when she signed the settlement agreement. She stated
that she did not have a lawyer at the time she signed the agreement and
that she �felt pressured� to sign the agreement.
In EEOC Request No. 05980187, the Commission denied complainant's request
for reconsideration.<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, grant a request for reconsideration on any previous
Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b). The Commission found that complainant failed to meet this
criteria and denied the request. The Commission informed complainant
that there is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision
following the request for reconsideration.
The record reveals that thereafter on May 30, 2002, complainant filed
a civil action in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-1054(RBW) with regard to the subject
settlement agreement. In her civil action complainant sought: (1)
a declaratory judgment to set aside the settlement agreement, or, in
the alternative, an order remanding the case back to the Commission,
and (2) relief declaring the settlement agreement void because she
allegedly lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute the agreement.
The district court dismissed the case without prejudice on December
15, 2003, stating that it was unable to determine whether complainant
exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to her claim that
she lacked the requisite mental capacity to enter into the settlement
agreement. The record contains a copy of the district court's Order
for the Commission to consider the following issues:
Whether the Commission determined that because [complainant] failed to
timely raise her mental capacity claim during the Informal Resolution
process, she was time-barred from raising this issue as a basis for
reconsideration.
Whether the Commission determined that [complainant] failed to timely
file her request for reconsideration.
Whether the Commission determined that [complainant] failed to timely
raise her mental capacity claim as a basis for reconsideration.
Whether the Commission granted [complainant's] request to supplement
the record with additional evidence ([complainant's] physician[�]s
statements) that [complainant] submitted with her January 9, 1998
statement and request for reconsideration.
Pursuant to its regulations, 2[9] C.F.R. [�] 1614.40[5](b), the
Commission[]<2> shall also set forth the reason(s) why the Commission
denied [complainant's] request for reconsideration.
On February 26, 2004, the agency filed a request for clarification of the
decision in EEOC Request No. 05980187 and providing the Commission with
the December 15, 2003 Order by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant has exhausted her
administrative remedies with regard to the subject settlement agreement.
In her initial appeal to the Commission, complainant alleged that
the April 1, 1996 memorandum was insufficient and that the agency had
breached the agreement. Complainant did not argue that she did not
enter the settlement agreement or that the agreement be declared void.
The Commission found that the April 1, 1996 letter from complainant's
supervisor satisfied the agreement. In her subsequent request for
reconsideration, complainant claimed for the first time that she lacked
the requisite mental capacity to enter into the agreement and sought to
have the agreement invalidated. The Commission considered the merits
of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous decision,
and the entire record, before determining that she failed to demonstrate
either 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). The Commission did not
find any issue or argument to be untimely in EEOC Request No. 05980187.
Complainant's evidence submitted on January 9, 1998, was considered by
the Commission in EEOC Request No. 05980187. Therefore, we find that
complainant has exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to
challenging the formation of the agreement and the sufficiency of the
apology by her supervisor in satisfaction of the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons, the
Commission GRANTS the agency's Petition for Clarification of the Order in
Geraldine Keith v. Railroad Retirement Board, EEOC Request No. 05980187
(October 19, 2000). We find that the agency fully complied with the
terms of the April 4, 1996 settlement agreement.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
February 23, 2005
__________________
Date
1The record reveals that the Commission
granted complainant an extension of time until January 9, 1998, to
submit a statement in support of her request for reconsideration.
The Commission advised that this was an extension of time to file a
statement in support of her reconsideration request, not an extension
of time to file the request for reconsideration itself.
2Bracket original.