0120103567
01-27-2012
Kim M. Brantley, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Kim M. Brantley,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120103567
Agency Nos. 1C-192-0006-05; 1C-192-0015-06
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal alleging that the Agency was not 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 Mail Handler at the Bulk Mail Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On November 3, 2006, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he
was discriminated against in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when he was denied entry into the Associate Supervisor Program (ASP)
on August 8, 2006. Complainant requested a hearing, which was held
on September 24, 2007. The Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned to the
case issued a decision on August 12, 2008 finding that the Agency had
retaliated against Complainant for his prior protected EEO activity.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order rejecting the AJ’s decision
and relief ordered.
In Brantley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020 (Feb. 20,
2009), the Commission reversed the Agency’s final order and found that
the Agency retaliated against Complainant. The Commission ordered the
Agency to admit Complainant to the next ASP class; offer Complainant
a supervisory position in one of his preferred facilities in the
Philadelphia area; reimburse Complainant for any lost wages incurred
as a result of his rejection from the August 2006 ASP class; train the
responsible Agency officials regarding retaliation; and consider taking
disciplinary action against the responsible Agency officials.
On August 7, 2009, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that:
(1) Complainant will be paid $6,000 in attorney’s fees;
(2) Complainant agreed that he has been paid the amount of back pay
and interest to which he is entitled as a result of the Commission’s
February 20, 2009 decision;
(3) Complainant will be reimbursed $7,000 in compensatory damages.
By letter to the Agency dated May 21, 2010, Complainant alleged that
the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant
alleges that the Agency failed to offer him a supervisory position.
In addition, Complainant disputes the amount of back pay awarded.
Further, Complainant alleges that there were others on the Advisory Panel
who should have been held responsible for their actions against him.
Finally, Complainant would like an explanation as to what training the
Agency officials received. The Agency did not respond to Complainant's
breach letter, and Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission.
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 (Dec. 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, the Commission finds that the Agency did not breach
the settlement agreement. The record reveals that the provisions that
the Agency allegedly failed to implement were remedies ordered from the
Commission’s decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020. Complainant,
Complainant’s attorney, and the Agency entered into the settlement
agreement to resolve that matter. The signed settlement agreement
provided that Complainant would not challenge the Agency’s compliance
with the Commission’s previous decision.
The record further indicates that the provisions which Complainant now
claims were breached were not included in the settlement agreement.
If Complainant had intended terms from the Commission’s decision to
be included in the agreement, he should have negotiated for such in the
agreement itself. Complainant has not alleged that the Agency misled him,
used improper methods to induce him to sign the settlement agreement,
nor that he was under duress when signing the settlement agreement.
The Commission notes that at the time of the agreement, Complainant
was clearly represented by an attorney who also signed the agreement.
Thus, under the terms of the settlement agreement itself, and in
keeping with established contract law, only those terms which have been
reduced to writing as part of the settlement agreement are enforceable.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Agency did not breach the
settlement agreement.
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 (Nov. 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 27, 2012
Date
2
0120103567
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120103567