Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 9, 2015

0120141259 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 9, 2015)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120141259

Agency No. 1F-904-0030-09

DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated
January 17, 2014, finding that the Agency breached the terms of the settlement agreement into
which the parties entered. For the following reasons, the Commission REMANDS the
Agency’s decision to reinstate the settled EEO matter.

BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2009, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement for
Agency Case No. 1F-904-0030-09. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The parties agree that if an opening occurs for a Sunday/Monday or a
Friday/Saturday or a Monday/Tuesday days off that [Complainant] will awarded
that opening based upon her seniority on Tour 2.

(2) Based upon staffing needs management agrees to allow a COD once a month on
Sunday/Monday.

By letter to the Agency dated June 27, 2013, 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 on June 25, 2013, she received notification that
she was being assigned to Tour 1 which she claimed beached the settlement agreement dated
January 20, 2009, which she stated was never honored.

0120141259

2
In its January 17, 2014 decision, the Agency noted that Complainant claimed she was never
awarded the agreed upon settlement of her informal complaint. The Agency noted
Complainant stated another supervisor who was not at the facility in 2008, was awarded
Sunday/Monday off days on Tour II and she was assigned to Tour 1 with a reporting time of
2230 hours with Monday/Tuesday non-scheduled days.

The Agency stated an inquiry was conducted and the Manager in Plant Support stated that
Webcoins indicated that Complainant held the non-scheduled days of Saturday/Friday which
would reflect compliance with the terms of the January 20, 2009 settlement agreement. The
Manager in Plant Support indicated it was his understanding that Webcoins reflected awarded
positions. The Manager in Plant Support explained that the award predated his participation so
he had to rely upon the Human Resources systems and reiterated that those systems reflected
that Complainant was in the position and it reflected on her PS Form 50.

With regard to item (2) of the agreement, the Manager in Plant Support indicated he did not
have personal knowledge of management's compliance with the agreement. However, he
stated that it was his understanding that the spirit of that component of the settlement provided
a COD until such time as Complainant received one of the Sunday/Monday; Friday/Saturday
or Monday/ Tuesday nonscheduled days combinations. He noted that the agreement was not
explicit on that point but noted he had been told that was the spirit of the settlement. He
concluded by stating that he did not have any reason to believe that Complainant solicited the
COD at the frequency outlined in the agreement which led him to believe that Complainant
understood the spirit of the settlement and abided by that understanding.

In conclusion, the Agency stated management is unable to assign Complainant the non-
scheduled days as specified in the terms of the settlement agreement dated January 20, 2009,
due to operational needs and as such the Agency stated Complainant’s discrimination claim
assigned case number 1 F-904-0030-09 will be reinstated from where processing ceased.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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
(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. Dep’t 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.
U.S. Postal Serv., 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
0120141259

3
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 that the Agreement was valid and binding. Inasmuch as the parties
are of accord that the Agreement was breached, we similarly find that the Agreement was
breached. Complainant does not argue on appeal that the agreement can or should be
specifically enforced. To the extent the Agency has not reinstated the settled matter (it appears
the matter was settled prior to the filing of an EEO complaint), we order the reinstatement of
the underlying settled matter for further processing from the point processing ceased. See

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.504(a).

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we REMAND the matter so that the Agency may reinstate the EEO matter settled
on January 20, 2009.

ORDER
Within 15 days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall resume processing of
the settled EEO matter from the point processing ceased pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. et
seq.

If Complainant files a complaint pursuant to this remand order, then the Agency shall process
the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 et seq. The Agency shall
acknowledge to Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within 30 days of the
date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within 150 days of
the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time.
If Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final
decision within 60 days of receipt of Complainant’s request.

Evidence of resumption of processing of the settled EEO matter must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced herein.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION

(K0610)
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 submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must
send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the
Commission’s order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the
order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to
0120141259

4
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, the 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 the 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

(M0610)
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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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

(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
0120141259

5
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

(Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also 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
with the Court 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

Date
January 9, 2015