01a54571
10-13-2005
Arna L. Edwards, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Arna L. Edwards v. United States Postal Service
01A54571
October 13, 2005
.
Arna L. Edwards,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54571
Agency No. 1C-151-0010-05
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated May 10, 2005, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the February 10, 2005 settlement agreement
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.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Supervisor] will assign [complainant] either a Saturday-Sunday or
a Sunday-Monday days off on the weekends of 2/26-27/05 and 3/5-6/05.
After that, [complainant]'s days off will rotate but will be consecutive
until [complainant]'s doctor documents that her condition improves.
By letter to the agency dated April 29, 2005, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency failed to provide complainant with a work schedule
in accordance with the requirements outlined in the settlement agreement.
In its May 10, 2005 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach
the settlement agreement.
On appeal, complainant argues that she is being treated unfairly with
respect to higher level assignments. In response, the agency restates the
position it took in its FAD and requests that we affirm its final order.
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. Department of Defense,
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. 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. See Montgomery
Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find the agency did not breach the February 10,
2005 settlement agreement. The record reveals that complainant was
given both Saturday and Sunday off on the weekends of February 26-27,
2005 and March 5-6, 2005, in accordance with the requirements of the
settlement agreement. The record further reveals that complainant was
given consecutive days off each week on a rotating basis from March 12,
2005 through April 29, 2005. Thus, the Commission finds that the agency
has complied with the provisions of the February 10, 2005 settlement
agreement.
We note that complainant is attempting to raise a new allegation on
appeal by arguing that she is being treated unfairly with respect to
higher level assignments. Complainant is advised that if she wishes to
pursue the additional allegation she raised for the first time on appeal,
she should initiate contact with an EEO Counselor. The Commission will
not accept a new claim raised on appeal.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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
October 13, 2005
__________________
Date