0520110686
02-16-2012
Charles Martinsen, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Charles Martinsen,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110686
Appeal No. 0120110349
Agency Nos. IRS-07-0054-F, IRS-07-0792-F,
IRS-07-1012-F, IRS-08-1012-F
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Charles
Martinsen v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110349
(August 25, 2011). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.405(b).
BACKGROUND
The previous decision declined Complainant’s request to void a March 28,
2008 settlement agreement because he lacked the mental capacity at the
time of signing. The previous decision found that Complainant failed
to show that he did not knowingly or voluntarily enter the settlement
agreement, or that he lacked the capacity to enter the agreement.
CONTENTIONS ON RECONSIDERATION
In his request to reconsider, Complainant argues that the previous
decision clearly erred in determining that he had the mental capacity
to enter into a settlement agreement. He attaches a hearing transcript
from a subsequent EEO case.1 The transcript shows that during closing
arguments, the Agency’s attorney referenced a December 18, 2006
consultation note, in which a doctor wrote that some of Complainant’s
complaints either have “the flavor of paranoia, delusions and
hallucinations (transitory, historical psychotic episodes) or reflect
behavior occurring in the workplace that require supervisory or legal
intervention.” The Agency’s attorney then suggested to the AJ to
not give Complainant’s testimony significant weight: “[B]ecause of
the Complainant’s paranoia, delusions, et cetera, he is medically and
mentally incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction . . . .”
Complainant argues that the Agency’s statements at closing argument
in a different case constitute an admission by the Agency that he lacked
the mental incapacity to enter into a settlement agreement at that time.
Complainant also attaches part of a psychologist’s letter, which appears
to have been written before December 13, 2007. The psychologist wrote
that Complainant’s supervisor “psychologically terrorizes him.”
“He becomes substantially limited in the major life activities of mood,
concentration, interacting with others, sleeping, and thinking. The more
his supervisor terrorizes him, the more depressed he becomes so the less
he can interact or control his mood so the less he can sleep or think so
the more depressed he gets. . . . If corrective action isn’t taken to
relocate him out of the hostile work environment and if his supervisor
doesn’t stop discriminating against him, then he will probably need
to be hospitalized.”
Finally, he attaches a letter he wrote to a Judge around the time of the
signing of the settlement agreement. Among other things, he explained
that he could not accept the draft of the agreement as written because
he objected to several terms and conditions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Upon review, the Commission determines that the previous decision did not
clearly err in declining to void a settlement agreement due to lack of
mental capacity. Here, Complainant did not sufficiently establish that
his condition rendered him unable to understand in a reasonable manner
the nature and consequences of the settlement agreement, and that such
incapacity existed when he signed the agreement.2 The medical documents
Complainant referenced in his request for reconsideration were written
months before he entered into the settlement agreement in March 2008.
Therefore, we find that the medical documents written in December 2006
and December 2007, do not show that on March 28, 2008, Complainant’s
mental capacity was substantially diminished.
His email around the time of the signing of the settlement agreement
shows an understanding and comprehension about the terms of the settlement
agreement and the consequences of signing. He specifically objected to
the language of several provisions because of potentially unfavorable
outcomes.
Finally, we decline to characterize the Agency’s representative’s
closing arguments in a hearing on a different case to constitute an
admission of fact here that Complainant lacked the mental capacity to
enter into a settlement agreement.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the
Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny
the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120110349 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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.
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
__2/16/12________________
Date
1 Martinsen v. Dep’t of Treasury, EEOC Hearing No. 531-2009-00260X,
Agency No. IRS-09-0090-F.
2 See, e.g., Merholtz v. Dep’t of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01955235
(Oct. 4, 1996) (voiding a settlement agreement where the complainant
did not read the agreement, and her medical documents showed that,
during the period of signing, the complainant’s cognitive capacity
was diminished by severe depression and taking many medications);
Kocher-Kinsman v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01992748
(Jan. 18, 2000) (voiding a settlement agreement where medical documents
and sworn testimony showed that, at the time of signing, symptoms
of significant anxiety and withdrawal of medication diminished her
decision-making capacity).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520110686
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110686