Denis C.v.U.S. Postal Serv.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2019

EEOC Appeal No. 2019002356 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2019)

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

Denis C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 2019002356

Agency No. 4W-047-0005-18

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated December 12, 2018, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of a November 7, 2018 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 November 7, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve a matter which had been pursued in the EEO process. The November 7, 2018 settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

2. Management will conduct a stand-up meeting with all employees of the facility
regarding the current Shoe Policy dated November 5, 2018 within ten (10) days of
today [November 7, 2018].

By letter to the Agency dated December 1, 2018, Complainant alleged breach of provision 2.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the supervisor did not conduct a stand-up meeting with all
employees regarding the current shoe policy within ten days of the signing of the November 7,
2018 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.
2019002356

2

In its December 12, 2018 final decision, the Agency found no breach of provision 2. The
Agency noted that according to Complainant’s supervisor, he acknowledged that the meeting
should have been conducted by the November 17, 2018 deadline but he was out of work from
November 13, 2018 through November 16, 2018 due to illness. The supervisor stated, however,
he conducted the stand-up meeting after returning to work on November 20, 2018.

In support of his contentions, the supervisor submitted a copy of the safety talk attendance roster
for the November 20, 2018 stand-up meeting regarding the shoe policy. The supervisor also
noted that Complainant was present but refused to sign as attending the meeting.

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 note that provision 2 imposed upon the Agency the following affirmative
obligation: to assure that management would conduct a stand-up meeting with all employees of
the facility regarding the current shoe policy dated November 5, 2018 within 10 days of the
November 7, 2018 settlement agreement.

We find that the Agency has complied with provision 2. We acknowledge that the supervisor
conducted a stand-up meeting regard the current shoe policy on November 20, 2018. The
Commission, however, has found that brief failure to satisfy a time frame specified in a
settlement agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial compliance of its terms, especially
when all required actions were subsequently completed. Mopsick v. Department of Health and
Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073654 (August 17, 2009) (citing Lazarte v.
Department of Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (April 25, 1996)).

2019002356

3
CONCLUSION

The Agency’s final decision finding no breach of provision 2 of the November 7, 2018
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

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
2019002356

4
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 (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

April 26, 2019
Date