EEOC Appeal 2020001789

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Verlie S., 1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001789
Hearing No. 480-2015-00578X
Agency No. 1F-901-0105-07
DECISION
On December 2, 2019, Complainant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). 	Complainant attached documents related to
the settlement of Deborah Cooper, et al. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC No. 480-2015-00578X,
Agency No. 1F-901-0105-07 (Cooper). 2
The record shows that, on October 25, 2019, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Final
Order Granting Approval of Settlement Agreement in Cooper. The Agency adopted the AJ’s final
approval by final order dated November 8, 2019. 	Thus, we view Complainant’s appeal as a
challenge, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.204(g)(4), to the AJ’s approval of the Cooper settlement
agreement.
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 Cooper, et al. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720090043 (May 9, 2012) (finding that
the AJ’s definition of the class and ultimate certification of the class complaint was supported by
the record).

2020001789	2
BACKGROUND
The Cooper class action giving rise to the settlement agreement at issue concerns discrimination
by the Agency against injured employees in the Los Angeles District who were previously
accommodated and subsequently denied work hours or instructed that there was no work available
for them from approximately June 12, 2007 to March 20, 2015, in violation of Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. The class
was found to consist of approximately 348 current or former Agency employees.
The record indicates that, on October 25, 2019, the AJ issued a Final Order Granting Approval of
the Settlement Agreement in Cooper. 	The Agency issued its Notice of Final Action on Final
Approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 8, 2019, agreeing to fully implement the
settlement agreement.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the total amount awarded to class members was
$1,200,000.00. 3 	The class members are eligible for relief as members of one of four groups
according to an allocation formula, which considers the date of the alleged harm and type of
evidence verifying the alleged harm. Group 1, consisting of 186 class members with claims worth
approximately $3,189.00 per person, covers claims that arose on or before the issuance of an
October 29, 2007 memorandum from the L.A. District Manager (DM Memo). Group 2, consisting
of 68 class members with claims worth approximately $1,161.00 per person, covers claims that
arose after the DM Memo but before the implementation of the National Reassessment Program
(NRP) in the L.A. District on March 20, 2009. 	Group 3, consisting of 46 class members with
claims worth approximately $696.00 per person, covers claims that arose after the implementation
of the NRP but before March 20, 2015, provided that the evidence submitted shows a claim other
than harm caused by the NRP as alleged in McConnell v. U.S Postal Serv., EEOC No. 520-2010-
00280X (McConnell). 4 Group 4, consisting of 48 class members with claims worth $271.00 per
person, covers claims for which class members cannot clearly identify when they were initially
sent home without pay, as evidenced by payroll codes 49, 59, and 60. The settlement agreement
also provided for an award of $2,000.00 to a former class agent in recognition of her time
commitment to participation in this matter.
3 Under the agreement, the class fund totals $1,200,000.00, including attorneys’ fees up to
$200,000.00, attorneys’ costs up to $210,000.00, and class costs up to $70,000.00.
4 The McConnell class action concerns a class of the Agency’s rehabilitation and limited-duty
employees whose positions were assessed by the Agency's National Reassessment Program (NRP)
between May 5, 2006 and July 1, 2011. An EEOC AJ found that the NRP subjected qualified
rehabilitation and limited-duty employees to disparate treatment which resulted in rehabilitation
and limited-duty employees with disabilities having their reasonable accommodations withdrawn,
as well as being subjected to disability-based harassment and having their confidential medical
information accessed by unauthorized persons. EEOC Appeal Nos. 0720160006, 0720160007
(Sept. 25, 2017), req. for recons. den. EEOC Request Nos. 0520180094, 0520180095 (Mar. 9,
2018).

2020001789	3
Following the issuance of the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s approval of the global
settlement agreement, Complainant filed the instant appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant asserts that she was never offered a reasonable accommodation.
In its appellate brief, the Agency asserts that of the 97 appeals before the Commission, only six
appeals come from individuals who objected to the settlement agreement and thus have standing
to appeal. However, the Agency argues that the Commission should affirm the AJ’s approval of
the settlement agreement and should dismiss all appeals for at least five reasons: (1) the majority
of complainants failed to object and thus lack standing to object; (2) some complainants expressly
released their right to appeal based on the submission of a Claim Form and Release; (3) some
complainants withdrew their appeals; (4) some complainants’ allegations fall under the class
definitions of other cases that were expressly excluded from the class definition in this matter; and
(5) complainants did not allege that the AJ abused her discretion in approving the settlement
agreement.
With respect to Complainant specifically, the Agency argues that Complainant’s appeal warrants
dismissal because Complainant “essentially filed a blank appeal form without providing any
statement or brief regarding the basis for [her] appeal.” The Agency adds that Complainant did not
respond to the Notice of Resolution and that Complainant failed to object that the settlement was
not fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole. The Agency maintains that the appeal
should also be dismissed because Complainant objected that the settlement agreement was unfair
to her personally because she was not a member of the Cooper class.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.204(g)(4) provides that a settlement of a class complaint shall
be approved if it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole, and does not solely benefit
the class agent. Class members must petition the AJ to vacate the resolution, or object, within 30
days of the date of the notice of resolution if it benefits only the class agent, or is otherwise not
fair, adequate and reasonable to the class as a whole.
We review an AJ’s decision to approve a class action settlement under an abuse of discretion
standard. 	See Haywood v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120111782 (July 25, 2011)
(citing to Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). In adopting the abuse
of discretion standard for reviewing an AJ’s approval of a resolution under 29 C.F.R. §1614.204,
we recognize “that the decision to approve or reject a settlement agreement is committed to the
sound discretion of the trial judge because he is exposed to the litigants, and their strategies,
positions and proof.” Id.

2020001789	4
In granting approval of the settlement agreement in Cooper, the AJ noted that 26 class members,
including Complainant, filed a timely objection to the settlement agreement and four additional
class members filed untimely objections. The AJ explained that following initial notice, 15 of the
objectors were excluded from the group of eligible class members due to failure to provide required
information, such as declarations. The AJ added that half of the objectors failed to provide any
information that would suggest that they were potential class members and all but one of the timely
objections failed to object to the settlement agreement itself. Several objectors asserted that they
were entitled to individual relief but were excluded due to their inclusion in other class action
complaints. Moreover, none of the objections, including Complainant’s, questioned the fairness,
adequacy or reasonableness of the settlement agreement to the class as a whole. 	Rather,
Complainant objected on grounds that she should have been included as a class member in the
settlement agreement. We find that the AJ properly denied Complainant’s objection.
On appeal, Complainant does not contend that the AJ abused her discretion in approving the
settlement agreement or denying her objection. Further, Complainant asserts no specific objections
regarding the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the settlement agreement to the class as a
whole.
Upon review and based upon the Findings articulately and persuasively set forth in the Final Order
Granting Approval of Settlement Agreement, we conclude that the AJ did not abuse her discretion
when she concluded that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class
as a whole. The AJ properly concluded that the terms of the settlement were based on appropriate
factors, including the absence of fraud or collusion; public policy in favor of reasonable
settlements; the substantial record beginning with initial proceedings before final approval of class
definition by the Office of Federal Operations (OFO); the substantial record based on proceedings
in the case; uncertainty of results; avoiding lengthy and expensive litigation and possible appeal;
notice to potential class members after preliminary approval and an opportunity to be heard; and
the objections to the settlement agreement, which did not object to the fairness to the class as a
whole. 	Complainant raises no persuasive arguments that the compromises reached in this
resolution were not fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole. As such, we find that
dismissal of the appeal is proper.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Complainant’s appeal is denied and the Agency’s final action approving the global
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

2020001789	5
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. 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 (S0610)
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.

2020001789	6
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’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 2, 2020
Date