0120131231
06-24-2013
Damian P. Ferrara, Complainant, v. Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
Damian P. Ferrara,
Complainant,
v.
Ray H. LaHood,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120131231
Agency No. 2011-23600-FAA-03
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated January 3, 2013, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a January 22, 2012 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2012, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter which Complainant pursued through the EEO complaint process.
The January 22, 2012 settlement agreement provided the following exclusive Agency obligation:
1. The Agency agrees to assist Complainant in his application to the Office of Workman's Compensation (OWCP) for medical retirement, by filling out those sections of Complainant's application that require a response from Complainant's employer, and providing any available supporting documentation requested of the Agency by OWCP. The Agency and Complainant both acknowledge that OWCP, not the Agency, has jurisdiction over medical retirement applications; OWCP, not the Agency designates those portions of the application that must be filled out by the Agency and those that must be filled out by Complainant. Complainant further acknowledges and understands that Complainant, and Complainant alone, must fill out those sections assigned by OWCP to the applicant, and that OWCP, not the Agency, may not process his application unless applicant himself completes those sections. The Agency agrees to support Complainant's claim in a timely manner, and to the fullest extent possible by law, provided that Complainant's application for medical retirement contains only those facts that support his actual claim of disability.
By letter to the Agency dated October 15, 2012, Complainant alleged breach. Specifically, Complainant alleged that since January 20, 2011, he had been ready with a signed CA-7 for management "to provide a date that I would be medically terminated due to my on the job injury and placed on leave without pay...but, have been met with resistance and non performance by management [named Agency official]."
Further, Complainant alleged that he attempted to obtain an updated SF-50 reflecting that he was removed from his position "and placed on administrative duties. I do not know how I can be reassigned to administrative duties without being removed from my safety related duties."
In its January 3, 2013 final decision, the Agency found no breach. Specifically, the Agency stated that an inquiry was made into Complainant's allegations, and evidence in the record reflects that on February 23, 2012, the Agency sent all the documents to OWCP for Complainant's retirement application and that the copies of the documents the Agency sent to OWCP were also sent to Complainant.
Regarding Complainant's claim that the Agency breached the agreement when it did not provide him with an updated SF-50, and when it did not provide a date that he would be "medically terminated due to his on-the-job, the Agency stated that there was nothing in the subject agreement requiring it to complete an updated SF-50 stating Complainant was no longer with the Agency.
Complainant, on appeal, argues that the documents that the Agency "provided to the OWCP for my scheduled award was written on February 21, 2012 and did not exist prior to that date. This letter clearly demonstrates that not only will they provide new letters and documents but it also show they will only assist as they chose to." Complainant further argues that the Agency "must medically terminate me with an SF 50 first in order for me to file with DOL OWCP."
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
When a settlement agreement lacks adequate consideration, it is unenforceable. See Collins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990). 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. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July 1, 1997). Also, a settlement agreement that is too vague to enforce is invalid. See Bibb-Merritt v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072689 (November 13, 2009).
Applying the legal principles, we find that the instant agreement is invalid due to lack of consideration. The instant agreement provides one Agency obligation (in provision 1): the Agency would assist Complainant with his medical retirement by filling out the sections of the applications that require a response from employers, and provide any supporting documentation requested of the OWCP; and Complainant would fill out the sections assigned for applicants. This provision provides no Agency obligation other than that required for any other employee pursuing a matter in the OWCP process. Therefore, we find that instant agreement lacks adequate consideration, and is thus unenforceable.
The Agency's decision finding no breach is REVERSED. The settlement agreement is voided and the case is REMANDED to the Agency so the underlying EEO matter may be reinstated for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
The Agency is ordered to resume the processing of the underlying settled matters from the point processing cease pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Within thirty (30) days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall notify Complainant in writing that it has reinstated his EEO complaint.
The Agency must provide a copy of this notice 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
June 24, 2013
__________________
Date
2
0120131231
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120131231
6
0120131231