0120113334
10-03-2012
Renaldo D. Ochoa, Jr., Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Renaldo D. Ochoa, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113334
Agency No. 4F-956-0127-08
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 4, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a June 26, 2008 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier at the Agency's Cedar Station in Fresno, California. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On June 26, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter.1 The settlement agreement provided that:
The [Agency] will send [Complainant] to the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee [DRAC] to determine if he has a qualifying disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
In November 2010, Complainant alleged breach. Specifically, Complainant stated he was supposed to be sent to the DRAC according to the agreement; however, he asserted that he was never contacted by the DRAC.
In its May 4, 2011 FAD, the Agency found no breach. Specifically, the Agency stated "[a]s of April 21, 2011, stated [a named manager], there was no discovery of evidence to reflect [Complainant's] participation in a DRAC meeting, the basis of which is voluntary...Record research disclosed that [Complainant] voluntarily retired from the [Agency] and [his] last day in pay status was [February 28, 2009]."
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant does not submit a statement or brief in support of his appeal.
The Agency requests that we affirm its final decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement. The Agency asserts that Complainant's breach claim is untimely. Specifically, the Agency states that Complainant filed the breach claim more than two years from the execution of the settlement agreement and that Complainant retired effective February 28, 2009.
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).
A valid contract must be based upon consideration where some right, interest, profit, or benefit accrues to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility is given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Collins v. U.S. Postal Serv, EEOC Request No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990) (a settlement agreement that was not based upon adequate consideration is unenforceable). Where the promisor receives no benefit and the promisee suffers no detriment, the whole transaction is a nudum pactum. Id. (citing Baker v. Chicago Fire and Burglary Detection, Inc., 489 F.2d 953, 955 (7th Cir. 1973).
In the instant case, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Agency agreed to send Complainant to the DRAC to determine if he had a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. We find that the Agency provided Complainant nothing more than that to which he was entitled to as an employee, and accordingly, he received no consideration for his agreement to withdraw his complaint.2
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we find that the settlement agreement is unenforceable. This matter is REMANDED to the Agency for reinstatement of the underlying complaint from the point processing ceased, in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall reinstate Complainant's underlying complaint and resume processing it from the point processing ceased. The Agency shall notify Complainant, in writing, that it has resumed processing his complaint.
A copy of the Agency's letter notifying Complainant of the reinstatement must be submitted to the Compliance Officer, as referenced below.
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
October 3, 2012
Date
1 The record reflects that the underlying claim pertains to a Letter of Warning that was issued to Complainant.
2 The Commission notes that the record contains a copy of a response from the Agency's Manager, Health Resource Management (M1) to a congressional inquiry dated June 23, 2008, prior to the execution of the settlement agreement. Therein, M1 stated that on May 8, 2008, Complainant submitted a written request for light duty with medical documentation listing his medical restrictions. M1 stated the request for light duty was denied. Moreover, M1 asserted that Complainant had various options, including voluntary participation in the reasonable accommodation process.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120113334
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113334