This EEOC Claim was awarded in the hundred thousand range. Lets look deeper into the discrimination, the evidence, and how Joseph won her EEOC discrimination claim against the agency for international development.
Joseph J. Schmidt,
Complainant,
v.
Henrietta H. Fore,
Acting Administrator,
Agency for International Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120082791
Agency No. EOP0701
Hearing No. 531-2008-00121X1
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated May 19, 2008, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the March 26, 2008, Settlement Agreement
(SA) 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.
In numerous letters to the agency with dates beginning on April 24, 2008,
complainant alleged that the agency was in breach of the SA and requested
that the agency invalidate its terms. Complainant contended that he was
coerced into signing the SA and sought EEO counseling for a new complaint
claiming constructive discharge and continuing reprisal. In its May 19,
2008, FAD, the agency denied that it was in breach or violation of the SA
and that complainant was coerced or under duress when he signed the SA.
The SA stated, in pertinent part, that it would pay complainant
$140,000.00 and ignore his leave deficit in exchange for withdrawal
of the complaint and a promise that he would not seek any future
employment relationship with the agency.2 In addition, the SA provided
that complainant had an opportunity to consult counsel, that he entered
into the SA “knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily,” that he agreed to
withdraw his complaint, and that he waived all further claims against
the agency. We note that the agency dismissed his complaint, that
complainant received $140,000.00 on April 21, 2008, that he consulted
with counsel, that complainant was very active in negotiating the terms
of the SA, and that he provided a letter from his psychiatrist that he
was competent to enter into the SA.
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 stated that a settlement agreement constitutes
a contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary
rules of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of
Defense, EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission
also has concluded 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. Department 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. United States Postal Service, 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.3 See Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng’g Servs. Co.,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, after review of the record, we find that complainant
has not presented probative or credible evidence that he was coerced
or that otherwise supports his contentions. We find that the parties
knowingly and voluntarily entered into the SA and that its terms are
valid and enforceable. We further note that complainant consulted with
counsel, was very active in negotiating the terms of the SA, and provided
a letter from his psychiatrist that he was competent to enter into the SA.
Therefore, we find no reason to intervene in this matter.
Accordingly, the agency’s FAD is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS – ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0408)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0408)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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
__09/15/2008________________
Date
1 Complainant’s request for a hearing was dismissed on April 2, 2008,
following the SA.
2 Complainant resigned from the agency on March 19, 2008.
3 Complainant is advised that matters in the negotiation process are
private and confidential between the parties, and the Commission will
not look at the documents he submitted regarding the negotiations.
2
0120082791
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120082791
5
0120082791
