01A14005_r
06-07-2002
Mary Kong, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mary Kong v. United States Postal Service
01A14005
June 7, 2002
.
Mary Kong,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A14005
Agency No. 4A-110-0156-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
agency decision dated April 18, 2001, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of a September 27, 2000 settlement agreement. 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:
(1) Complainant will use her best efforts to fulfill her responsibility
as T6 on full duty;
(2) [Management Official A] agrees that upon request, he will consider
the duration of time Complainant spends at the window in any given day
and will use its best efforts to accommodate her within the bounds of
its authority and the demands of the postal station on that day;
Parties agree to enter into this agreement to cultivate an improved
working relationship; and
Parties agree that Complainant will be treated always as fairly and
equally as are all other employees at the station.
By letter to the agency dated March 31, 2001, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the
agency implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that agency
breached the agreement when Management Official B failed to treat her in
a fair and equitable manner, in violation of provision 4 of the agreement.
In its April 18, 2001 final decision, the agency found no
breach. Specially, the agency found that the settlement agreement
binds only the signing parties, complainant and Management Official
A. Consequently, the agency concluded that complainant's allegations
regarding Management Official B are not within the purview of the
agreement and fail to constitute a breach of its provisions.
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). 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. Department 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 v. United States Postal
Service, 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).
Further, the adequacy or fairness of the consideration in a settlement
agreement generally 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 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).
The Commission finds that the settlement agreement is void for lack of
consideration. We note that provision 1 merely obligates complainant to
do what she is already expected to do as an agency employee. Provision 4
merely recites the agency's preexisting obligations toward complainant
under applicable laws and regulations. Regarding provision 3, the
Commission determines that its promise �to cultivate an improved working
relationship� lacks consideration, and is too vague and subjective to
allow a determination as to whether or not the agency complied with such
a provision. See Bruns v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01965395 (June 24, 1997) (provision in settlement agreement that
complainant was to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect was
too vague to allow a determination as to whether the agency complied
with the provision). The Commission determines that provision 2 is also
too vague and subjective to allow a determination regarding compliance
(i.e., the agency will �consider� the duration of time that complainant
spends at the window; and use its �best efforts� to accommodate her).
The Commission determines that the settlement agreement fails to
provide complainant with anything that she was not already entitled to
receive as an agency employee, i.e., these provisions do not provide
any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of the underlying EEO
complaint. We find that the settlement agreement is void for lack of
consideration and therefore order the reinstatement of complainant's
underlying complaint for further processing.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no settlement breach is VACATED,
and the matter is REMANDED to the agency for further processing in
accordance with this decision and the ORDER set herein.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to resume processing of complainant's complaint from
the point processing ceased within thirty (30) calendar days of the date
this decision becomes final. The agency shall acknowledge to complainant
that it has reinstated and resumed processing of his complaint.
A copy of the agency letter of acknowledgment must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as 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
June 7, 2002
__________________
Date