Felix Ortiz, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 23, 2012
0120113727 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 23, 2012)

0120113727

01-23-2012

Felix Ortiz, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro Area), Agency.




Felix Ortiz,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(New York Metro Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120113727

Agency No. 4A006003109

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 20, 2011, 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 him to unlawful discrimination,

Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO

complaint process. On February 25, 2009, Complainant and the Agency

entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement

agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The Office of Injury Compensation will contact O.W.C.P. in order to

resolve [Complainant’s] OWCP case.

On May 26, 2011, Complainant notified the Agency that he believed it

was in breach of the settlement agreement. Complainant asserted that

his medical plan payment was still not corrected, that the pay anomaly

was not completed, and that hours owed were ignored.

In its June 20, 2011 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach

of the agreement because the Manager, Injury Compensation did in fact

contact OWCP concerning Complainant’s claim. The Agency determined

that the corrections identified by Complainant need to be made by OWCP,

not the Agency. Accordingly, the Agency found it had not breached the

terms of the settlement agreement.

The instant appeal followed. Complainant does not make any arguments

on appeal.

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).

However, the plain meaning rule loses its relevance when a settlement

agreement lacks adequate consideration because such agreements are

unenforceable. See Collins v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Request

No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990) (a settlement agreement that was not based

upon adequate consideration was unenforceable). 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 Serv., 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 & Human Serv.,

EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992)).

In the instant case, only one party, Complainant, incurred a legal

detriment by withdrawing his formal EEO complaint. Upon review,

we find that the settlement agreement at issue herein is void for

lack of consideration. The Agency would have had a duty to process

Complainant’s OWCP claims regardless of the agreement.

Therefore, we find that Complainant’s original complaint shall be

reinstated. The matter is REMANDED as set forth below.

ORDER

The Agency shall reinstate Complainant’s underlying complaint and

process it in accordance with the procedures and timeframes detailed

in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 from the point at which processing ceased due

to the settlement. 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), 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

January 23. 2012

__________________

Date

2

0120113727

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120113727