01A14955_r
02-22-2002
Jenny Li, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jenny Li v. United States Postal Service
01A14955
February 22, 2002
.
Jenny Li,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A14955
Agency No. 1-A-113-0037-00
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's July 13, 2001 final decision
finding no breach of a settlement agreement is proper pursuant to the
regulation set forth at EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
On September 20, 2000, the agency and complainant entered into a
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided that:
All parties agree to treat each other in a professional manner and with
mutual respect and dignity.
Upper management will show accountability for actions of 204B's to
supervisory personnel.
By letter dated June 29, 2001, complainant claimed settlement breach.
Specifically, complainant stated that on March 16, 2001, the abusive
behavior of a 204B supervisor was so extreme that she was forced to
leave work and seek medical attention.
On October 4, 2001, the Manager of Distribution Operations, who had
signed the settlement agreement on behalf of management, executed an
EEO Investigative Affidavit and stated that after becoming aware of the
March 16, 2001 incident, he interviewed the 204B supervisor, �strongly
advised her� that her conduct had been inappropriate and reassigned
her so that her contact, if any, with complainant would be minimal.
The manager also apologized to complainant and stated that she should
contact him immediately if any similar incident took place.
In its final decision, the agency found no settlement breach. The agency
determined that the manager's �immediate and effective response� assured
that no breach had occurred. On appeal, complainant contends that she
never received an apology and that she is still being treated as a second
class citizen.
EEOC Regulations provide that any settlement agreement knowingly and
voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be binding on both parties.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with the
terms of a settlement agreement, then the complainant shall notify the
EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance "within 30 days of when the
complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance."
29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms
of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or request
that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point
processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the complainant and the
agency and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
and not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's
construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05900795 (Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d
296 (7th Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine
if there is a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the
intent of the parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule.
Wong v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing Hyon
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2, 1991)). This rule states that
if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, then its
meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without
any resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery
Elevator v. Building Engineering Service, 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 an 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 Service,
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 and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910888 (March 11, 1992).
Here, we find the provisions requiring �all parties to treat each other
in a professional manner with mutual respect and dignity� and relating to
upper management accountability for supervisory actions are too vague to
be enforced. The agreement fails to confer on complainant any benefit
that she was not already entitled to as a matter of law. Therefore,
we find that complainant received no consideration for withdrawing her
complaint and the settlement agreement is void.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no breach of the settlement agreement
is VACATED. The matter is REMANDED to the agency for further processing
in accordance with the ORDER below. We advise the agency to address
the issue concerning the basis of reprisal for grievance activity as
part of its processing of the instant complaint.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to reinstate complainant's EEO complaint and
other related matters that may have purportedly been disposed of by
the settlement agreement of September 20, 2000, at the point in which
processing ceased. The agency shall acknowledge to complainant that
it has resumed processing complainant's complaints and other related
matters within thirty (30) calendar days of the date that this decision
becomes final.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment notifying complainant
of the reinstatement of her complaints and other related matters must
be sent to the Compliance Officer referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 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 (M0701)
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 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 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 (R0900)
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
February 22, 2002
Date