0120120359
06-07-2012
Sheila Gaines, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Sheila Gaines,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120120359
Hearing No. 110-2004-00311X
Agency No. 4H310009104
DECISION
On October 17, 2011, Complainant filed a Notice of Appeal form with this Commission. Complainant attached to the form documents related to the settlement of Hill, et al. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC No. 110-2004-00311X, Agency No. 4-H-310-0091-04 (hereinafter Hill). The record shows that on September 6, 2011, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Order Finding settlement Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate. The Agency adopted the AJ's final approval by decision dated September 19, 2011. Thus, the Commission views Complainant's appeal as a challenge, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.204(g)(4), to the AJ's approval of the Hill settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
Hill, et al. v. United States Postal Service, the class complaint giving rise to the settlement agreement at issue, concerns alleged discrimination by the Agency against employees with disabilities who were veterans, by making improper pre-employment medical inquiries. Briefly, veterans who applied for positions and claimed veterans' preference were told to report for an interview bringing a sealed envelope containing their veterans rating decision, a copy of their medical records for the past twenty-four months, and/or a signed statement listing any medical treatments or ailments experienced in the past twenty four months. On September 7, 2007, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) certified a nationwide class covering the period March 19, 2004 to the present. One of the class agents opposed the agreement and two other class agents had approved the agreement.
The record indicates that on August 10, 2011, the AJ informed class members of a proposed settlement of the class complaint, giving them the opportunity for review and approval, and offering the opportunity to participate in a hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement agreement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the total amount awarded was $11.2 million dollars. Under the agreement, $1.3 million was allotted in attorney fees, $250,000 to the settlement administrator, and the rest for payments to the class of about $1,000 per class member. The main class agent, in recognition of his initiation and prosecution of the case, received a $20,000 bonus. Three other class agents received $5,000. One hundred and seventeen class members who assisted in the discovery process received $2,500.
Based on documents submitted with Complainant's appeal, she appears to have timely filed an objection with the AJ, although she was not identified by name. Following the hearing on September 1, 2011, the AJ issued an Order finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate, dated September 6, 2011, and approved the settlement. In his decision approving the settlement, the AJ noted that one class agent had objected to the settlement and two other class agents approved the settlement. The AJ also noted that at the hearing one other class member opposed the settlement and four spoke in favor. The AJ also indicated that in addition to those appearing at the hearing, approximately 9,000 claims for compensation had been received. Thus, the AJ assumed those filing for compensation approved the settlement.
Following the issuance of the AJ's approval of the global settlement agreement and the Agency's Final Action on Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, Complainant filed the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We review an AJ's decision to approve a class action settlement under an abuse of discretion standard. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). In adopting the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing an AJ's approval of a resolution under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.204, we recognize "that the decision to approve or reject a settlement agreement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because he is exposed to the litigants, and their strategies, positions and proof." Id.
On appeal, Complainant mainly presents documents which she says she sent to the AJ, and which are related to actions occurring before the March 24, 2004 date used in the instant matter. These include an earlier 2000 EEO complaint, a 2003 civil action, and a 2003 suspension. Complainant is apparently unhappy that the settlement agreement did not resolve her earlier claims.
Upon review, and based upon the findings articulately and persuasively set forth in his Order, we conclude that the AJ did not abuse his discretion when he concluded that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate and reasonable to the class as a whole. While Complainant indicates that the agreement did not resolve issues personal to her, she makes no persuasive argument that the compromises reached in this resolution were not reasonable and fair to the class as a whole. We conclude that her claim is not sufficient to reject the overall fairness of the settlement. See Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, Complainant's appeal is denied and the Agency's final action approving the global settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
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), at 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 (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 (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
June 7, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120120359
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120120359