0120113156
11-06-2012
Deidre L. Beal, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Deidre L. Beal,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113156
Agency No. 4H330031310
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (Decision) by the Agency dated March 18, 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 Letter Carrier at the Agency's Miramar Branch facility in Miramar Florida.
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On September 22, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will be considered for the next AMS position and training.
(2) Management should use the resources available to management to perform carrier duties.
On February 28, 2011, Complainant again sought EEO counseling, on this occasion to complain about the Settlement Agreement between the parties. The Agency views Complainant's comments to the EEO Counselor as constituting an allegation of breach of the September 2010 agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that a current employee performing AMS duties was overburdened and needed assistance and that "therefore it is evident that the AIMS [sic] position should be available now." Complainant further indicated that by failing to consider her for the position, the Agency was also breaching the clause that required that management use the resources available to perform carrier duties.
In its March 18, 2011 Decision, the Agency concluded it had not breached the Agreement. The Agency denied that the current employee was overburdened and further found that he "has been performing his assignment with regard to the AMS duties." The Agency further found that, while it was "unfortunate" that Complainant had "not received the AMS position and training, there has not been a vacancy or opportunity to provide [her] the training."
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).
Generally, as long as some legal detriment is incurred by each party as part of the bargain, the adequacy or fairness of the consideration in a settlement agreement is not at issue. 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. 0196453 (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)). Here, the Agency could avoid its contractual duties with regard to clause (1) by simply deciding not to create a new AMS position and hence any consideration offered to Complainant in exchange for her withdrawal of her complaint is illusory. See e.g. Reed v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071712 (May 15, 2007) (where agency has discretion to suspend contract by declaring an "emergency" the agreement lacks consideration). Further, since the condition precedent to the Agency's obligation to consider Complainant for the AMS position did not materialize, i.e., a need for the new AMS position did not occur, the Agency was not required to do anything in exchange for Complainant's withdrawal from the EEO process. In addition, we find that the language is too vague to enforce since anyone who applies for a position, even someone who is unqualified, could be said to be "considered" for a position to the extent that the Agency may receive their application, immediately recognize that they are unqualified, and reject the application while still claiming to have "considered" it. Thus nothing was promised to Complainant beyond what the Agency is already obligated to do and there was no legal detriment by the Agency. See Brown v. United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 020090822 (April 1, 2009) (agency agreement to address Complainant "as all other employees in a professional manner" lacked consideration).
We similarly find Clause (2) to be void for lack of consideration, again because by promising to "use the resources available to management to perform carrier duties" the Agency promised nothing beyond what it is already obligated to do and incurred no legal detriment in exchange for Complainant withdrawing her complaint.
Finally, we note that on appeal, Complainant has mentioned additional concerns that may or may not constitute additional claims of discrimination. If Complainant feels that she has incurred additional instances of discriminatory treatment, she may amend her complaint to include such new claims.
CONCLUSION
Because we find that the Agreement lacked consideration and the terms were too vague to enforce, the Decision finding no breach is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Agency to reinstate Complainant's underlying complaint from the point processing ceased. Additionally, Complainant should be given the opportunity to amend her complaint to include any additional incidents she has raised herein.
ORDER
The Agency is ordered to process the underlying complaint settled by the September 22, 2010 agreement from the point where processing ceased. Complainant shall be given the opportunity to amend her complaint to include any incidents she has raised herein. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has reinstated the underlying complaint for further processing within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant that it has reinstated the processing of her underlying complaint 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), 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 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
November 6, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120113156
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113156