Luvenia S.,1 Complainant,v.Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 10, 2017
0120151922 (E.E.O.C. May. 10, 2017)

0120151922

05-10-2017

Luvenia S.,1 Complainant, v. Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Luvenia S.,1

Complainant,

v.

Martin J. Gruenberg,

Chairman,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120151922

Agency No. FDICEO-15-018

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging that a 2015 settlement agreement which the parties entered should be voided. We note that Complainant filed her appeal on May 12, 2015. The Agency responded to the appeal in July 2015, asking that the settlement agreement not be revoked. While Complainant did not follow the procedures set forth in 29 C.F.R. �1614.504, for the sake of administrative economy, we shall accept this matter on appeal.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human Capital Consultant/Compensation Specialist, CG-12, at the Agency's Division of Administration facility in Arlington, Virginia.

Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, on December 24, 2014, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process alleging discrimination on the bases or race and national origin. Complainant opted for mediation in lieu of traditional EEO Counseling process. Mediation began on January 9, 2015, and was scheduled to close on March 24, 2015. During mediation, Complainant and the Management Official signed a draft agreement on March 17, 2015. The draft agreement stated:

THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT BINDING, FINAL, AND EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE REVIEW, CONCURRENT, APPROVAL AND SINGATURES OF THE [AGENCY] OFFICIALS, OMWI [OFFICE OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION], AND THE PARTIES ARE PROVIDED BELOW.

The signatures were obtained by Complainant and the Agency Management Official on March 17, 2015. The agreement still required signatures from the Agency's legal division and the director of OMWI. The Mediator sent the OWMI a memo dated March 17, 2015, indicating that an agreement was reached between Complainant and the Management Official.

While the agreement was under review by OMWI and the legal division, on March 24, 2015, OMWI issued Complainant a Notice of Right to File a formal complaint. Complainant contacted the EEO Counselor indicating that the matter had been pending resolution pursuant to the agreement she signed on March 17, 2015. However, in order to preserve her rights, Complainant filed her formal complaint on April 10, 2015.

On April 13, 2015, OMWI and the Agency's Legal Division signed the agreement entered into by Complainant and the Agency's Management Official to resolve the matter. Complainant indicated that she sent an email to the Agency explicitly asking that the Agency not take action in compliance with the settlement agreement. She sought to pursue the matter through the EEO complaint process rather than the settlement agreement. On April 20, 2015, the Agency electronically deposited money in Complainant's checking account pursuant to the settlement agreement. Subsequently, on April 22, 2015, the Agency issued a letter to Complainant informing her that, due to the settlement agreement, the Agency had closed Complainant's formal complaint.

By letter to the Agency dated May 12, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission. She asserted that she had filed her formal complaint and that the agreement was merely temporary and no longer valid. She asserted that the matter was not fully resolved by the settlement agreement and that she wished to continue with the formal complaint. She noted that if the Agency wanted to settle the matter, the Agency could provide her with the relief she asked for within her formal complaint. The Agency responded to Complainant's appeal asking that the Commission deny Complainant's request to revoke the settlement agreement.

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).

In the instant case, Complainant asserted that the settlement agreement should be voided because she filed the formal complaint after she signed the agreement. We note that the Agency's actions seemed to have confused the situation by issuing Complainant a notice of right to file despite the fact that the OWMI was aware that Complainant and the Management Official had come to an agreement which was under review. However, Complainant has not indicated that the settlement agreement was reached through any misrepresentation or duress. See Wolf v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900417 (June 14, 1990) (finding that the Commission may set aside a settlement agreement due to misrepresentation as to facts relevant to the complaint). She merely asserted that she no longer wanted to settle the matter after she signed the agreement. In addition Complainant did not express to the Agency any concern over the settlement agreement. Therefore, based on our review of the record, we find that Complainant has provided no justification for voiding the agreement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the Agency's determination that the settlement agreement is valid and binding and should not be voided.

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

May 10, 2017

__________________

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

0120151922

4

0120151922