01A31263_r
05-02-2003
William R. Dooley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
William R. Dooley v. United States Postal Service
01A31263
May 2, 2003
.
William R. Dooley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31263
Agency No. 4J-493-0073-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated December 6, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the May 21, 2002 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Person A] will do further review and investigation of issues involving
disability retirement documentation and review of job function.
The maintenance job issue is unresolved.
By letter to the agency dated June 18, 2002, complainant alleged that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the
EEO complaint be reinstated for processing. Specifically, complainant
alleged that Person A failed to contact Person B or complainant about
the agreement with a decision within thirty (30) days after the signing
of the agreement. The record contains an October 2002 letter from
complainant again requesting reinstatement of his complaint for further
processing due to the breach of the May 21, 2002 settlement agreement.
In its December 6, 2002 decision, the agency concluded that complainant
failed to timely notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when he knew or should have known of the alleged
noncompliance. The agency stated that complainant contacted the EEO
Office with his breach allegation on October 23, 2002. The agency
claimed that complainant was denied disability retirement by the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) and that his request for reconsideration
was also denied by OPM on May 7, 2002. The agency stated that with
regard to a review of complainant's job transfer request to a maintenance
position, the selected candidate was better qualified for the position
than complainant. The agency noted that no 30-day time limit was included
in the settlement agreement requiring management to contact complainant.
On appeal, complainant states that he notified the agency of the breach
in June 2002. Complainant provides a copy of a June 18, 2002 letter
notifying the agency's EEO Office of his breach claim. Complainant
attaches a copy of the certified receipt indicating that the letter was
mailed to the agency on June 19, 2002, and received on June 20, 2002.
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 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).
The Commission finds the present agreement is void for lack of
consideration. 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. U.S. Postal Service,
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 and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992)).
Here, we find the provision requiring the agency to "do further review
and investigation of issues involving disability retirement documentation
and review of job function" is too vague to be enforced. Therefore,
we find that complainant received no consideration for withdrawing his
complaint and the settlement agreement is void.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no settlement breach
is VACATED. The Commission hereby voids the settlement agreement and
REMANDS the matter that was settled so that the settled EEO matter may
be reinstated for further processing in accordance with the Order herein.
ORDER
The agency shall resume processing of complainant's settled EEO matter
from the point where processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105
et seq. Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the
agency shall acknowledge to complainant that it has reinstated and
resumed processing of complainant's settled EEO matter.
A copy of the agency letter of acknowledgment must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced below.
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, 2003
__________________
Date