01A52782
05-02-2006
Marie Conley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Marie Conley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52782
Agency No. 4G-770-0274-04
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 28, 2005, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the June 25, 2004 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:
The Acting Manager will begin the investigation into the claim that
two male co-workers have been wrongly paid more than complainant from
November 2000 to the present and that the investigation process be
completed no later than December 25, 2004. All information will be
made available to complainant. If back pay is awarded then the amount
complainant was not paid will be increased by 2.0%. If it is found
that complainant's salary was underpaid, it will be adjusted to the
proper amount.
By letter to the agency dated January 11, 2005, 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 the agency failed to investigate her claim that the male co-
workers were paid at a higher level.
In its February 28, 2005 FAD, the agency concluded that an inquiry was
conducted as directed by the settlement agreement. Therefore, the agency
found that it did not breach the settlement agreement as alleged by
complainant. Complainant appealed arguing that nothing has been done and
that she has not been paid the pay she deserved.
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
Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
That notwithstanding, the plain meaning rule loses its relevance when a
settlement agreement lacks adequate consideration because such agreements
are unenforceable. See Collins v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Request
No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990) (a settlement agreement that was not based
upon adequate consideration was unenforceable). 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 Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July 1,
1997); Juhola v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01934032 (June 30,
1994) (citing Terracina v. Department of Health & Human Serv., EEOC Request
No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992)).
In the instant case, only one party, complainant, incurred a legal
detriment by withdrawing her EEO matter. The agency did not incur any
legal detriment. We note that the only obligation placed on the agency was
that it would investigate complainant's claim that other males were being
paid more than she. Had complainant filed a formal complaint, the agency
would have been obligated to investigate the claim as part of the formal
EEO complaint process. In exchange, complainant waived her right to use of
the EEO complaint process, including the right to a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge, an appeal before the Commission, and even the right
to file a civil action. Upon review, we find that the settlement agreement
at issue herein is void for lack of consideration. Therefore, we find that
complainant's original complaint shall be reinstated.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission vacates the agency final decision and
reinstates Agency No. 4G-770-0274-04 for further processing as ordered
below.
ORDER
The agency is ordered to resume the processing of the settled EEO claims
from the point processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Within
thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision become final, the
agency must notify complainant of reinstatement of the settled EEO claims.
The agency must provide the Compliance Officer with a copy of this letter,
as referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036.
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 (M0701)
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 19848, Washington, D.C.
20036. 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 (R0900)
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 (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
May 2, 2006
__________________
Date