0120112218
02-22-2012
Edna Rijos, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Edna Rijos,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112218
Agency No. 4B-006-0070-10
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the Agency dated February 16, 2011, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Clerk at the Agency’s Toa Baja facility in Puerto Rico. Believing
that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant
contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On October 30, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that:
That the Postal Service will credit complainant 8 hours of Sick Leave
for each of the following dates, May 26, 27 and 28, 2010, for a total
of 24 hours of Sick Leave with no further compensation.
By letter to the Agency dated December 15, 2010, 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 credit her with 24 hours of sick leave
at issue. In its February 16, 2011 FAD, the Agency concluded that it
had satisfied the terms of the settlement agreement.
On appeal, Complainant reiterates her contention that the Agency failed to
credit her with the 24 hours of sick leave as set out in the settlement
agreement. In its response, the Agency states that it had previously
misinterpreted the meaning of the settlement agreement in the FAD but
that a correction was made on June 6, 2011, whereby a pay adjustment
was submitted to correct the error and the sick leave used on May 26,
27, and 28 was credited to Complainant and changed to Administrative
Leave. As such, the Agency argues that it has now satisfied the terms
of the agreement.
ANALYSIS
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 has not breached the
settlement agreement. In so finding, we note that the record shows that
on June 6, 2011, a Pay, Leave, or Other Hours Adjustment Request was
authorized to credit Complainant with the 24 hours of sick leave used
on May 26 -28, 2011. The record further shows that the 24 hours of leave
at issue were converted to Administrative Leave “as per EEO Settlement
Agreement.” Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Agency satisfied
the terms of the settlement agreement and we AFFIRM the FAD.
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
February 22, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120112218
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120112218