Kirandip Dhaliwal, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 2, 2001
01A04015 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2001)

01A04015

02-02-2001

Kirandip Dhaliwal, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Kirandip Dhaliwal v. United States Postal Service

01A04015

February 2, 2001

.

Kirandip Dhaliwal,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A04015

Agency No. 1F-946-0019-00

DECISION

On May 16, 2000, complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from an

agency decision dated April 14, 2000, finding that it was in compliance

with the terms of the February 4, 2000 settlement agreement into which the

parties entered.<1> 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:

(1) [Complainant's supervisor] has no objection to [complainant] working

six days per week and the same hours as other part time flexible employees

with the same schemes.

(2) [Complainant's supervisor] will inform [Manager] of that fact.

(3) [Complainant's supervisor] will investigate [complainant's] allegation

that other PTFs were working longer hours between October 18, 1999 and

January 8, 2000. If that proves to be true [complainant's supervisor]

will recommend that [complainant] be paid back pay for those hours.

On March 15, 2000, the agency received a letter from complainant alleging

that the agency �failed to carry out the mediation settlement to my

complaint.� Complainant stated that she wanted to proceed with her EEO

complaint or �revisit� the settlement agreement.

In its April 14, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that it had not

breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency noted

that complainant's supervisor investigated complainant's work hours and

the work hours of two other employees. The supervisor concluded that,

based on her medical limitations, complainant was not entitled to work

any more hours than what she had received.

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. 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, that 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 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).

The plain meaning of provisions 1 and 2 of the agreement does not impose

an affirmative agency obligation to provide complainant with additional

hours. Provision 1 simply states that complainant's supervisor �has

no objection�to complainant working the same hours as other Part Time

Flexible employees; and provision 2 simply indicates that this lack of

an objection will be conveyed to another agency official. Therefore,

despite complainant's contention that the agency is reducing her work

hours, we find that provisions 1 and 2 were not breached. The agency's

decision finding no breach of provisions 1 and 2 is AFFIRMED.

However, with respect to provision 3 of the agreement, the agency has

not provided any evidence that complainant's claim was investigated.

The agency decision provides the names of two employees whose work

hours were compared to complainant's work hours during the supervisor's

investigation. One of the cited employees is named by complainant in

her formal complaint. However, the other employee has not been cited by

complainant as a comparative employee. On appeal, complainant provides

documents regarding hours that she worked, and two other employees named

in the formal complaint. The documents provided by complainant appear

to contain information regarding hours worked, but we are unable to make

a determination regarding provision 3 without further clarification.

For example, although a year and a pay period number are included on

each page, we are unable to determine which time period is covered by

the documents. Therefore, a supplemental investigation on the matter

will be conducted, as we are unable to ascertain whether provision 3 of

the settlement agreement has been breached. The agency's decision finding

no settlement breach of provision 3 is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED

to the agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:

1. The agency shall supplement the record with documentation showing

whether the agency has complied with provision 3 of the settlement

agreement. The supplementation of the record shall include, but not

be limited to, documentation reflecting the hours worked by complainant

and relevant co-workers (part time flexible workers) between October 18,

1999 and January 8, 2000; whether these co-workers worked longer hours

than complainant; and whether the named agency official in provision

3 will recommend that complainant be paid back pay if the co-workers

worked longer hours than her.

2. The agency shall thereafter issue a new final decision addressing

the alleged breach of provision 3 within thirty (30) calendar days of

the date this decision becomes final.

A copy of the agency's new final decision must be submitted to the

Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right

to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order

prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29

C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying

complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File

A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action

for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject

to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the

complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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 (T0900)

This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it

also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a

portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion

of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion

of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative

processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after

one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your

complaint with the agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until

such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.

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

February 2, 2001

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

______________________________

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.