01a60569
05-25-2006
Donna M. Carter, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Donna M. Carter,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A60569
Agency No. 4K-230-0096-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated October 11, 2005, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the June 14, 2002 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:
As of June 22, 2002, [complainant] shall be reinstated at Ampthill Station
as a Limited Duty Clerk, termed a 959, within her regular restrictions.
In September 2005, complainant contacted the agency and indicated that
she believed the settlement agreement had been violated. According to
complainant, on August 18, 2005, she was removed from the limited
duty position that she was awarded as a result of the settlement
agreement.1 The agency, in its FAD, provided affidavits and documentation
indicating that complainant was still assigned to the Ampthill Station
in a limited duty capacity. The agency provided two reasons for why
complainant's position was changed. According to the agency, there
were changes to complainant's work restrictions and duty assignments.
The agency also maintained that they were advised by Labor Relations
that it would violate the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
if complainant continued performing clerk duties because the district
was eliminating clerk positions. The agency argued that the settlement
agreement was still being honored because complainant continued to work
within her restrictions at the Ampthill Station in a 959 (limited duty)
capacity.
On appeal, complainant indicated that:
[T]he original limited duty job offer dated June 18, 2002, which
generated from the EEO settlement, outlined certain clerk duties as my
job re-assignment. I was removed from all of these duties except to
answer the phones. I am presently considered in limited duty capacity
termed 959, but I do not have the same job reassignment awarded to me.
Complainant also maintained that her medical restrictions did not change
and that the only documents that show a change were written by management
when she was removed from her position. Finally, complainant maintained
that she was "forced" to accept the new modified job assignment in order
to continue working and receiving benefits.2 The agency, on appeal,
reiterated its contention that the settlement agreement had not been
violated.
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. 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,
which 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).
Where an individual bargains for a position, without any specific terms
as to the length of service, the Commission has held that it would be
improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of the parties to include
employment in that exact position forever. Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). Here,
complainant was provided a Limited Duty Clerk position as specified
in the settlement agreement. Three years after being placed in the
position, complainant was offered a new Modified Limited Duty work
assignment because, among other reasons, the district was eliminating
its Clerk positions. The record contains no evidence indicating that
the agency was aware that this circumstance would occur when the parties
entered into the agreement; therefore, we do not find that it acted in
bad faith. After a careful review of the record, we are unable to find
that a violation of the settlement agreement occurred when the agency
changed complainant's assignment.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission affirms the agency's final decision finding
no breach.
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
____05-25-06______________
Date
1 The record indicates that, on August 23, 2005, complainant was offered
and accepted a new Modified Limited Duty work assignment.
2 According to complainant, she asked what the consequences were for
refusing the job offer and was told that OWCP would be contacted and
appropriate action taken.
??
??
??
??
2
01A60569
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
01A60569