0120070013
03-28-2008
Marilyn Timmons, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Marilyn Timmons,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070013
Agency No. 1G-711-0007-06
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission concerning
the terms of the July 13, 2006 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.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The 24 days of LWOP [will] be adjusted to a PS Form 3971 sick
leave request to be approved and adjusted by the Plant
Manager, and Marilyn Timmon's removal reference letter
dated July 11, 2006, [will] be rescinded, and Marilyn reports
to work Friday, July 14, 2006.
By letter to the agency dated August 1, 2006, complainant maintained that
the settlement agreement was unfair because she signed the agreement
under duress. Complainant stated that she signed the agreement because
she could not afford to be in a non-pay status until her EEO complaint
was resolved.
The agency failed to respond to complainant's letter, and complainant
timely appealed the matter to the Commission on September 19, 2006.1 The
Commission acknowledged the appeal on October 18, 2006. The agency has not
responded to complainant's appeal. On appeal, complainant further states,
"I felt I had to sign this agreement under coercion and economic duress
for which I could not financially sustain for a year with no income."
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. Department of Defense, EEOC Request
No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). A settlement agreement may be void,
or voidable, if one of the parties establishes that assent was obtained
by duress or coercion. See Mosley v. St. Louis Southwest Railroad, 634
F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1981); Hodge v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal.
As an initial matter, we note that complainant does not allege that the
terms of the agreement were breached. Instead, complainant contends that
the agreement should be voided because she was coerced into signing the
agreement. The Commission examines coercion claims with close scrutiny.
The party raising the defense of coercion must show that there was an
improper threat of sufficient gravity to induce assent to the agreement
and that the assent was in fact induced by the threat. Such a threat may
be expressed, implied or inferred from words or conduct, and must convey
an intention to cause harm or loss. A complainant's bare assertions will
not justify a finding of coercion. Lenihan v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05960605 (December 5, 1995).
In the instant case, complainant contends that she signed the agreement
under duress and coercion because she could not afford to be in a
non-pay status until her EEO complaint was resolved. However, there is
no evidence that the agency forced complainant to sign the agreement
or violated her right to not enter into the agreement. Instead,
complainant now apparently regrets signing the agreement because she
feels that its terms are not advantageous to her interests. We have
found that a settlement agreement made in good faith and otherwise
valid will not be set aside simply because it appears that one of the
parties made a bad bargain. See Miller v. Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05960622 (December 5, 1997). Therefore, we find that
the settlement agreement is valid and binding and deny complainant's
request that the agreement be set aside.
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 (S0900)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. 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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, 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
_March 28, 2008_________________
Date
1 Pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. 1614.504(b), when the agency
fails to respond to the notice of breach, a complainant may file an
appeal with the Commission for a determination regarding a settlement
agreement thirty-five days after serving notice to the agency.
??
??
??
??
2
0120070013
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120070013
5
0120070013