01a02747
08-17-2000
Clarence M. Hill, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Clarence M. Hill v. United States Postal Service
01A02747
August 17, 2000
Clarence M. Hill, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A02747
William J. Henderson, ) Agency Nos. 4-H-310-0264-97
Postmaster General, ) 4-H-310-1014-95
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated February 8, 2000, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the January 14, 2000 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.<1>
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(5) It is understood by the undersigned that the instant agreement
is in full and complete settlement of the following (cases): EEOC
No. 110-99-8014X, Agency Nos. 4-H-310-0264-97, 4-H-310-1014-95.
(6) It is further stipulated that the withdrawals are made without any
threat, coercion, intimidation, promise, or inducement other than the
terms set forth in the agreement.
(7) The [agency] in return for the above, agrees to compensate the
Complainant in the gross sum of twenty five hundred dollars ($2,500).
(8) Further, this settlement agreement contains the entire agreement
between the Complainant and the [agency] . . .
The [agency] agrees to remit the settlement proceeds to Complainant
within three weeks of the date of signing this agreement.
By letter to the agency dated February 6, 2000, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to pay him the agreed upon
amount within three weeks of the signing of the agreement. In addition,
complainant stated that the agency breached the agreement by sending
complainant a January 24, 2000 call-in notice for an interview,
instructing him to provide his medical records. Also, complainant argued
that he was under duress when he signed the settlement agreement.
In its February 8, 2000 decision, the agency stated that it committed an
immaterial breach of the agreement by failing to remit the settlement
proceeds to complainant within the specified three week period.
The agency claimed, however, that once complainant informed the agency
of the problem, it made further efforts to ensure remittance.
On appeal, complainant argues that the settlement agreement should be
set aside because he was denied due process and because he was under
duress when he signed the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant
claims that he was entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law but his
motion was ignored by the Administrative Judge (AJ) prior to the hearing.
Complainant also claims that he was under duress at the time the agreement
was signed. Specifically, complainant states that after the hearing, the
AJ brought up the issue of settlement and refused to allow complainant
the opportunity to seek legal advice prior to signing the agreement.
In addition, complainant states that the Administrative Judge (AJ)
issued a verbal order from the bench ordering the agency not to ask
for the complainant's medical records at the pre-offer stage of the
hiring process. Complainant claims that the agency breached the AJ's
oral order. Complainant also alleges breach in that the agency failed
to pay him the agreed upon amount within the specified time frame.
Finally, complainant states that the $2,500 provided in the agreement
is not a reasonable settlement amount.
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be
codified and hereinafter referred to 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).
Complainant alleges that he was under duress when he signed the settlement
agreement. Specifically, complainant states that the Administrative Judge
(AJ) rushed him into signing the settlement agreement. Complainant also
states that he asked the AJ before he signed the agreement whether he
could take the agreement home and seek the advice of counsel. Complainant
claims that the AJ told him that he could not seek the advice of counsel.
Furthermore, complainant states that the agency refused to provide him
a copy of the hearing transcript which contains material evidence to
support his allegations of extreme emotional duress. The record does not
contain the hearing transcript which might indicate whether complainant
was under duress or coerced when he entered the settlement agreement.
Therefore, we shall remand the matter to determine whether complainant
was under duress (or coerced) at the time the January 14, 2000 settlement
agreement was signed. Finally, we note that because of our decision in
this case we will not address complainant's breach claim at this time.
Accordingly, we VACATE the agency's final decision and REMAND the matter
to the agency for further processing in accordance with the Order below.
ORDER
The agency shall supplement the record with a copy of the hearing
transcript and any other relevant evidence in determining whether
complainant was under duress (or coerced) at the time the agreement was
signed. The agency shall provide complainant with the opportunity to
submit any evidence indicating that the settlement agreement of January
14, 2000, was signed under duress (or coercion). The agency shall have
60 calendar days from the date this decision becomes final within which
to supplement the record and to issue a new final decision addressing
the validity of the settlement agreement, including the issues of whether
complainant was under duress at the time the agreement was entered into
or whether complainant was coerced into signing the settlement agreement.
A copy of the new final decision must be sent to the Compliance Officer
as listed herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)
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
August 17, 2000
__________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.