Michelina C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 21, 2017

0120150328 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 21, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Michelina C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120150328
Agency No. 1J-531-0033-13

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency’s September 15,
2014, letter of determination 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 March 28, 2014,
Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The
settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The [Agency] agrees to pay [Complainant] the total sum of $1,500.

(3) [Complainant] further agrees she will never seek reinstatement or employment
of any kind with the [Agency], nor will she apply as a new hire of any kind with
the [Agency]. If [Complainant] returns to [Agency] employment in violation of
this provision, she will be automatically terminated and she agrees to waive any
right to appeal this termination.

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.
0120150328

2

By letter to the Agency dated June 6, 2014, 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 the Agency misled her into signing the settlement
agreement.

In its September 16, 2014, letter of determination, the Agency concluded that it had not
breached the settlement agreement. The Agency determined that Complainant was paid $1,500
and, in exchange, she was to not seek employment with the Agency. The Agency noted that
Complainant applied for a position and was contacted for an interview. When the hiring
official discovered the terms of the settlement agreement, Complainant was not offered
employment. As a result, the Agency found that it had complied with the settlement
agreement. The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant contends that she has been a casual employee off and on with the
Agency for 10 years. Complainant argues that she has passed the test twice and still has yet to
receive permanent employment with the Agency. Complainant claims that she accepted the
terms of the settlement agreement because the Agency’s attorney stated that the Agency did not
want her to return back to work. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission find
that the Agency breached the settlement agreement.

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).

Since the Commission favors the voluntary resolution of discrimination complaints, settlement
agreements are not lightly set aside. However, the Commission will find the contract void if
coercion, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, or mutual mistake occurs during the formation
0120150328

3
of the contract, making assent to the agreement impossible. See Shuman v. Dep’t of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990).

Here, the plain language of the settlement agreement reflects that the Agency was to pay
$1,500 in exchange for Complainant withdrawing her EEO complaint and not seeking future
employment with the Agency. Complainant does not contend that the Agency failed to pay her
as required. Nonetheless, Complainant ignored the plain language of the settlement agreement
and applied for employment with the Agency. Once the hiring official learned of the terms of
this settlement agreement, Complainant was not offered employment as was required by the
settlement agreement. Complainant argues that she was misled when she signed the agreement
because the Agency attorney informed her that the Agency did not want her back to work.
Complainant further contends that she should be allowed to seek permanent employment with
the Agency because it has hired individuals with lower postal exam scores. The Commission
finds that Complainant has presented no evidence that she was coerced or misled into entering
the settlement agreement. Consequently, the Commission finds that the Agency did not breach
the settlement agreement when it did not offer her employment.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Agency did not breach the settlement agreement.
The Agency’s letter of determination is AFFIRMED.

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
0120150328

4
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 (S0610)

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 (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

March 21, 2017
Date