Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 11, 2014
0120122800 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 11, 2014)

0120122800

04-11-2014

Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120122800

Agency No. 4G700019911

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 25, 2012, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked at the Agency's facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On October 27, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that

"Management will send a request to OIG and ask that the surveillance cameras be monitored on the days of August 24, September 6 and September 7, 2011. With the times being 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. August 24th 2011 and 7:30a.m. September 6th until 8:00a.m. September 7th 2011.

By letter to the Agency dated April 30, 2012, 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 provide her with the footage from the surveillance cameras for the dates specified in the agreement.

In its May 25, 2012 FAD, the Agency concluded that the Agreement between the parties had not been breached as alleged. Specifically, the Agency indicated that following the execution of the Agreement on October 27, 2011, Agency officials contacted an OIG Special Agent and asked to review the surveillance footage from the above referenced dates. According to the Agency, OIG indicted that because the security cameras are on a 31 day cycle, any videos from those dates are no longer available for review as they are recorded over.

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).

Because the Commission favors the voluntary resolution of discrimination complaints, settlement agreements are not lightly set aside. However, the Commission will find the contract void if coercion, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, or mistake occur during the formation of the contract, making assent to the agreement impossible. See Shuman v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990).

In the instant case, the Commission determines that the settlement agreement is void as a matter of law. Based on our review of this matter in its totality, it appears that the parties made a mutual mistake in the formation of the settlement agreement. The agreement is unenforceable because the parties operated under the erroneous assumption that the Agency surveillance cameras would provide access to video from August 24, September 6 and September 7, 2011. However, unbeknownst to the parties, those dates were recorded over and not available for viewing. Because of this mutual mistake by the parties, a mistake that we find material, the parties formed an agreement for which compliance on the Agency's part was impossible. The Commission therefore determines that the settlement agreement is void.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we VACATE the Agency's determination of no breach, and REMAND the complaint to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the Order set forth below.

ORDER (E0610)

The Agency is ordered to continue processing the matter resolved by the October 27, 2011 settlement agreement from the point at which processing ceased in accordance with the procedures and timeframes in 29 C.F.R. � Part 1614. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.

A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant must be sent 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), 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 (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

April 11, 2014

__________________

Date

2

0120122800

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120122800