0120143032
01-23-2015
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120143032
Agency No. 1E-985-0011-13
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a letter of determination by the Agency dated July 30, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a July 23, 2013 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter which had been pursued through the EEO complaint process. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2. [Supervisor Distribution Operations] will remove [Complainant's] RSL [Restricted Sick Leave] status effective today 7/23/13.1
By PS Form 2564-A "Information for Pre-Complaint Counseling" dated May 25, 2014, Complainant alleged breach of provision 2. Specifically, Complainant alleged that during the relevant period he used Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave "but it stills says I'm on RSL, I have complained for over 10 months and have given management more than enough time to fix the problem within the IVR [Interactive Voice Response] system, they refuse to, they did not honor the agreement. [A named male Supervisor, Distribution Operations] had no right to give me a RSL in Jan/2013, he did not show up for the mediation on 7/23/2013. My official record is now badly tarnish[ed] because of the actions of [male Supervisor Distribution Operations]."
In its July 30, 2014 letter of determination, the Agency found no breach. The Agency found that a Supervisor Distribution Operations (Supervisor) stated that on July 23, 2013, she removed Complainant from the RSL status. The Supervisor further stated that she sent Complainant a letter dated July 24, 2013, confirming his removal from the RSL. The Supervisor also informed Complainant that he may still be required to bring in medical documentation for absences when it is deemed desirable according to Section 513.36 "Sick Leave Documentation Requirements" of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM).
Complainant, on appeal, argued that in January 2013, the male Supervisor Distribution Operations placed him on the RSL and "till this day reason is unknown. I know he wanted to impress upper management by doing this, he had no authority."
Further, Complainant stated that he agreed to the instant settlement agreement in which the Agency was supposed to remove him from the RSL and "correct ALL dates, from the time I received it correct with the USPS Human resource office, the call-in system IVR and correct my OPF file, and attendance record [emphasis in its original]."
The instant appeal followed.
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 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 Agency complied with provision 2 of the settlement agreement. Provision 2 provides for an affirmative Agency obligation to assure that the Supervisor would remove Complainant from the RSL status effective July 23, 2013.
The record contains a copy of the Supervisor's letter to Complainant dated July 24, 2013. Therein, the Supervisor notified Complainant that the RSL letter dated January 22, 2013 "will be removed from all files as of today's date."
The record also contains a copy of the Supervisor's affidavit dated July 25, 2014. Therein, the Supervisor stated that she removed Complainant from the RSL status "on 07/23/13, as agreed. I followed up by providing a letter to [Complainant] dated 07/24/13, confirming his removal from Restricted Sick Leave, according to the process established in the Employee and Labor Relations [Manual] (ELM) section 513.393."
Further, the Supervisor stated that she placed Complainant on notice that he may still be required to bring in medical documentation for his absences when it is deemed necessary according to Section 513.36 of the ELM, as other postal employees. The Supervisor stated that she explained to Complainant that the IVR system will notify him when necessary, of the need for documentation "however, this is not an indication that they are on Restricted Sick Leave. One example for using "deems desirable" is every holiday. I put everyone on "deems desirable" because [Seattle PMA Manager] requires us to make sure that anyone who calls in during a holiday week would bring acceptable supporting documentation. This practice has been in place for quite sometimes even before I joined PMA Staff in April 2013. There is no designation in the IVR system indicating that [Complainant] is on Restricted Sick Leave."
Complainant, on appeal, argues that that the intent of the parties was for the Agency to remove him from the RSL status, and correct all his absence dates with Human Resources, the IVR system, and in his personnel file and attendance record. However, provision 2 does not have as expansive an Agency obligation as contemplated by Complainant on appeal. Specifically, the subject settlement agreement does not specify that the Agency would make corrections with Human Resources, the IVR system, and in his OPF file and attendance record. If Complainant had wanted the Agency to make such adjustments, he should have included it as part of the subject settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01851903 (March 4, 1987).
Accordingly, the Agency's determination that it was not in breach of provision 2 of the July 23, 2013 settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
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), at 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 (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.
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
January 23, 2015
__________________
Date
1 The settlement agreement also provides that the Supervisor Distribution Operations would consult with facility management in providing a 204's training in attendance in control to include FMLA policies and documentation requirements. This provision is not at issue in the instant case.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120143032
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120143032
6
0120143032