0120120655
04-30-2012
Sherion V. Timberlake, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Sherion V. Timberlake,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120120655
Agency No. 4K270007311
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated October 12, 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
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk (Bulk Mail) at the Agency's Durham facility in Durham, North Carolina.
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August 12, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
It is agreed that [Complainant] will return medical documentation to management after her Dr.'s [doctor's] appointment on August 17, 2011. The documentation will be given to management no later than August 27, 2011, or Complainant will give a reason for the delay. Management will assess the Dr.'s statement and make a determination as to whether the limitation is within the scope of Complainant's current bid job (Bulk mail). Management will address the work that is not being processed when [Complainant] is not present. [Complainant] will make management aware when she has reached her medical limitations.
By letter to the Agency dated August 24, 2011, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on August 24, 2011, the Supervisor of Customer Service told her to distribute flats longer than the 2 hours that were agreed upon during the mediation, and she was told that she would be working alone on Saturday, August 27, 2011. In addition, Complainant indicated that management does not assign anyone to do her duties when she is on leave.
In its October 12, 2011 FAD, the Agency concluded that with respect to Complainant being told to work beyond her limitations on August 24, 2011, the agreement specified that Complainant would provide updated medical documentation concerning her limitations. Management noted that the updated medical documentation that Complainant provided, dated August 17, 2011, did not indicate that Complainant had limitations that would preclude her from doing the work that she had been assigned on August 24, 2011. Management further noted that that it was their intent to cover the "nixie" duties of Complainant's assignment when she was absent, but due to staff shortages, they have been unable to do so. For these reasons, it was the Agency's decision that the Postal Service has fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The instant appeal followed.
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).
The adequacy or fairness of consideration in an agreement usually is not at issue, so long as the parties incurred some legal detriment. When a party incurs no legal detriment, the settlement agreement lacks consideration, and is void. See Terracina v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910888 (Mar. 11, 1992). To incur a legal detriment, the parties must commit themselves to do something they were not already obligated to do. See Morita v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05960450 (December 12, 1997). In the instant matter, both Complainant and the Agency agreed to what is essentially a reiteration and reaffirmation of existing Agency policy.
Looking to the plain meaning of the agreement, we conclude that the Agency agreed to do nothing in exchange for Complainant's withdrawal of her EEO complaint, and thus, the Agency incurred no legal obligation by signing the agreement. Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that the agreement is void and, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504, the Agency should reinstate Complainant's complaint from the point that processing ceased.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision is VACATED and the complaint is REMANDED for reinstatement from the point processing ceased.
ORDER (E0610)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded underlying complaint in accordance with the procedures outlined in 29 C.F.R. � Part 1614 from the point where processing ceased because of the settlement agreement. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims and provide her with instructions on how to proceed next with the processing of her complaint within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment and instructions 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), at 9-18 (Nov. 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
April 30, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120120655
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120120655