EEOC Appeal No. 0120161094
02-23-2017
Doria D. v. U.S. Postal Serv.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Doria D.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161094
Agency No. 4J-481-0184-14
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated January 28, 2016, 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
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On December 22, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The job offer as a Customer Care Agent will be withdrawn effective 09/22/2014 because the job is not within her restrictions. The [Agency] will continue to search in good faith for a job within [Complainant's] restrictions.2
By letter to the Agency dated November 23, 2015, 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, on November 11, 2015, she was offered the Customer Care Agent position in the Customer Care Center. Complainant indicated that this position was not conducive to her medical restrictions and that this offer was in violation of the agreement.
In its January 28, 2016 determination, the Agency noted that the Acting Manager averred that the Call Center position was within her restrictions and she was offered the position on November 16, 2015. As such, the Agency concluded that it did not breach the agreement. This appeal followed.
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).
The Commission finds that the instant 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 Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01964653 (July 1, 1997); Juhola v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01934032 (June 30, 1994) (citing Terracina v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992)
In the instant settlement agreement, the Agency only agreed to withdraw a position for which she could not perform due to her medical restrictions and that the Agency would conduct a search for a position within Complainant's medical restrictions. As such, we determine that the settlement agreement provided Complainant nothing more than that to which she was already entitled as an employee, so she received no consideration with respect to the settlement agreement. See Hudson v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120120741 (Nov. 15, 2012) (determining that a settlement agreement which required the Agency to consider providing Complainant with work within her limitations was void for lack of consideration); see also Brown v. U.S. Postal Serv., Appeal No. 0120090822 (April 1, 2009) (Agency agreement to address Complainant "as all other employees in a professional matter" lacked consideration). Based on the foregoing, the settlement agreement is unenforceable and is void for lack of consideration. Therefore, we determine that Complainant's original complaint shall be reinstated.
In addition, it appears that Complainant has alleged that she was denied a reasonable accommodation following the agreement when she was issued another assignment to the Call Center which violated her medical restrictions. That claim should be included as an accepted amendment to Complainant's underlying complaint of discrimination when processing is resumed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission VACATES the Agency's letter of determination. The Commission hereby voids the settlement agreement and REMANDS this matter to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
The Agency is ORDERED to resume the processing of the settled complaint, as amended, from the point processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall notify Complainant in writing that it has reinstated her EEO pre-complaint. In addition, the Agency shall accept as an amendment to the complaint, Complainant's claim that she was denied reasonable accommodation in November 2015.
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 (M0416)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 23, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 The Agency stated that there were no other terms or conditions to this settlement agreement.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120161094
2
0120161094