U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Darrin F,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120173054 Agency No. 4F-920-0109-17 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's August 17, 2017 final decision, finding that that a June 29, 2017 settlement agreement was void and unenforceable. 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 worked for the Agency as a City Carrier Assistant at the Agency's Palm Desert Post Office in Palm Desert, California. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On June 29, 2017, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part that the Agency would provide Complainant "no probation," a certified on-the-job instructor, move Complainant to another facility, and pay him $4,000 in compensation. The settlement agreement obligated Complainant to withdraw any and all pending EEO complaints and appeals relative to the subject matter of his complaints. Additionally, the settlement agreement stated that the parties understood that it was binding and constituted a full and final settlement of all issues. On July 7, 2017, Complainant alleged breach, and requested that the Agency implement the terms of the subject settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to abide by any of its obligations under the settlement. In its August 17, 2017 letter of determination, the Agency asserted that the local supervisor and stand-in postmaster,2 lacked proper authority from the Agency enter into the agreement that rescinded Complainant's removal action, reinstated him, moved him to a new office and waived his probationary period and paid him monetary compensation. According to the Agency, there could be no breach because the Agency had voided settlement agreement. The Agency further argued that the signed settlement agreement was unenforceable because "the parties were notified on the day of mediation that the settlement agreement was void." The instant appeal followed. Neither Complainant nor his representative presented further argument on appeal. 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 (Dec. 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 (Aug. 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 (Dec. 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). In the instant case, we decline to uphold the Agency's attempt to invalidate the subject settlement agreement. This settlement agreement was a voluntary, valid contract as soon as it was signed by both parties. See Madar v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081295 (Apr. 22, 2008). We are unpersuaded by the Agency's attempt to void the settlement agreement based upon its representatives purported lacking authority, after the fact. We have consistently held that to successfully argue that its representative was not authorized to bind an agency to a settlement agreement, an agency must present evidence that its signatories lacked the requisite authority. Here, beyond conclusory statements, the Agency has failed to provide any convincing evidence in support of its position that its representatives lacked authority to bind the Agency. See Epstein v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 01952695 (March 11, 1997) request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05970671 (July 2, 1998). Although the record contains a "No Agreement Letter" that was signed contemporaneously by the mediator alone, that document does not negate the written settlement agreement that Complainant, his representative, and two Agency management officials signed voluntarily and mutually. Accordingly, we find the settlement agreement to be both valid and binding on all parties. We have found the Agency to have breached the settlement agreement. EEOC has two options in remedying this situation: 1) reinstate the complaint or 2) order specific performance. See Adina P. v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120172320 (Oct. 3, 2017). In this instance, we find it appropriate to order the Agency to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, as fully set forth below. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Agency's determination that it was not in breach because the agreement was void; we uphold the settlement agreement as valid and enforceable. We REMAND the matter to the Agency further processing in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER Within thirty (30) calendar days form the date that this decision becomes final, the Agency is ORDERED to comply with the terms of the subject settlement agreement as follows: 1) Reinstate Complainant to his position and grade while waiving his probationary period; 2) Transfer Complainant out of the Palm Desert Post Office to another post office within Riverside County, California; 3) Provide Complainant with no less than three days of training by a certified on-the-Job Instructor (OJI); and 4) Pay Complainant $4,000.00 in compensation. The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Further, the report must include supporting documentation of the Agency's compensation payment and other benefits due Complainant, including evidence that the action delineated above has been implemented. The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0617) 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 in the digital format required by the Commission, and submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). 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, 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 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 (M0617) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request 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 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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 (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, Director Office of Federal Operations December 6, 2017 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. 2 The Agency stated that the Palm Desert Post Office postmaster was away on training. As a result, a postmaster from another post office had represented the Agency at the mediation that produced the June 29, 2017 settlement agreement. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0120173054 2 0120173054