0120113712
11-08-2012
Miguel A. Rivera, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Region), Agency.
Miguel A. Rivera,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Region),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113712
Agency No. 4H-335-0079-11
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated June 29, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of an April 19, 2011 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant was a clerk at an Agency facility in Mid Florida, Florida.
On April 19, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter which was pursued in the EEO complaint process. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Upon ratification of a new contract on May 11, 2011 in reference to all residual vacancies that fall outside of the new withholding radius parameters, Counselee, [Complainant], and [Management Official], will work together to seek an opportunity for Counselee to reassign into a FTR residual position; preferable a maintenance position at the Orlando Annex. The parties agree to the same terms if the ratification occurs at a later date, and have exchanged contact information at this meeting to facilitate their agreement. For reference, a listing as of this date of the currently held residual positions has been provided by [Management Official] to [Complainant] this date.
By letter to the Agency dated June 17, 2011, Complainant alleged breach. Specifically, Complainant alleged that he has yet to select from the list provided during mediation and that he received an email dated June 15, 2011 from the Management Official (MO) stating "'management is not obligated to you to place you into a maintenance craft position.' Also, 'at this point, there is not much more I can do for you.'"
In its June 29, 2011 final decision, the Agency found no breach. Specifically, the Agency stated that it appears from the record that Complainant desired to change crafts from the clerk craft to the maintenance craft. The Agency noted that Complainant sought reassignment into a FTR residual position. The Agency stated that a Management Official stated that during her discussions at the mediation and afterwards, she made it clear to Complainant that residual vacancies were being withheld for impacted employees pursuant to Article 12 of the national agreement between the Agency and the union.
The Agency further noted although Complainant preferred a maintenance position at its Orlando, Florida Annex, he was not guaranteed one. The Agency stated that the Management Official had communicated with Complainant that because Complainant was in the clerk craft, there was no obligation to place him in maintenance craft. The Agency also stated that the Management Official informed Complainant that if Agency management placed Complainant in the maintenance craft, it would be in violation of the national agreement and adversely impact other employees' rights. The Agency stated that pursuant to the agreement, Complainant and the Management Official agreed to work together to seek an opportunity for Complainant to get reassigned into a FTR residual position. Moreover, the Agency stated that since Complainant had been reassigned to a FTR residual position at its Fruitland Park Post Office effective July 2, 2011, it was in compliance with the April 19, 2011 settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 plan meaning rule, however, loses its relevance when a settlement agreement lacks adequate consideration because such agreements are unenforceable. See Collins v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990) (a settlement agreement that was not the consideration in a settlement agreement 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).
The essence of the Agency affirmative obligation in the instant settlement agreement provided for a named management official to "work together" with Complainant in an effort "to seek" an opportunity for a reassignment. Without more, the Agency obligation provides merely a generalized commitment to work with Complainant to this end. The agreement is silent as to the method of Agency cooperation with Complainant, or the express steps that would be considered or taken toward the purpose to "seek" a reassignment. We determine that, given the circumstances of this particular case, Complainant received no consideration with respect to the settlement agreement. See Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, Appeal No. 0120090822 (April 1, 2009) (Agency agreement to address Complainant "as all other employees in a professional matter" lacked consideration). Based on the foregoing, the April 19, 2011 settlement agreement is unenforceable and is void for lack of consideration. Therefore, we find that Complainant's underlying complaint shall be reinstated.
The Agency's final decision finding no breach is REVERSED. We hereby void the April 19, 2011 settlement agreement and REMAND this matter to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
The Agency is ORDERED to resume the processing of the settled matter from the point processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall notify Complainant in writing that it has reinstated her EEO complaint. The Agency must provide a copy of this notice 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 (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 8, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120121138
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113712
6
0120113712