Bullock v. United States, 17-445

Ellen P. Bullock filed a Title VII EEO complaint against the Army on August 12, 2013 and requested an EEOC hearing.
During 2015 mediation before EEOC Administrative Judge Anita Richardson, an August 27 email from the mediator stated the agency "will agree to pay $70,000," but no settlement was read into the record or signed by the parties.
The mediator requested the agency’s proposed settlement terms to prepare a written agreement; on September 21, 2015 the mediator notified parties the Army had rescinded the August 27 offer and reported an impasse.
Bullock pursued EEOC proceedings into 2017 and filed a breach of contract action in the Court of Federal Claims on March 28, 2017; the court initially dismissed for lack of authority but later reinstated jurisdiction for further proceedings.
Cross-motions for summary judgment followed: Bullock contends an enforceable oral settlement (and Lynch had authority); the United States argues EEOC and Army regulations require a written, signed settlement and no such writing exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a binding oral settlement was formed at the 2015 mediation	Bullock: parties formed an enforceable oral contract for $70,000	United States: no binding oral contract; no signed writing as required by regulations	No — court held no binding oral contract because required written, signed settlement was not executed
Whether Army counsel (Lynch) had authority to bind the government	Bullock: Lynch had authority when she represented the $70,000 agreement	United States: Lynch lacked express/implied authority to bind the Army	Not dispositive — court did not need to resolve authority because the writing requirement prevented formation of a binding contract
Effect of EEOC and Army regulations requiring written settlements	Bullock: (did not effectively rebut the regulation argument)	United States: 29 C.F.R. §1614.603 and Army Reg. 690-600 require written, signed settlements; those rules preclude enforceable oral settlements	Court: regulations control; written signed agreement required, so oral agreement cannot bind the government
Applicability of precedent enforcing oral settlements (e.g., Tiburzi)	Bullock: Federal Circuit has enforced oral settlements in similar administrative contexts	United States: those cases are distinguishable (no writing requirement; terms read into record)	Court: distinguished those precedents — prior cases involved written-rule exemptions or agreements read into the record; here none of those features exist

Greco v. Dep't of the Army, 852 F.2d 558 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (settlement agreement is a contract)
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. United States, 932 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (elements required to bind the government)
Tiburzi v. Dep't of Justice, 269 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (oral settlement enforced where no written requirement and terms read into record)
Mil-Spec Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.2d 865 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (regulation requiring writing precludes oral modification)
SCM Corp. v. United States, 595 F.2d 595 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (regulation requiring written, signed modification precluded oral agreement)
New Am. Shipbuilders, Inc. v. United States, 871 F.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (oral assurances not binding until agency procedures are completed)
Sargent v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 229 F.3d 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (no intent to be bound until written contract signed)