Letty K.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 9, 20192019001057 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 9, 2019) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Letty K.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2019001057 Agency No. 1G-754-0049-18 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated September 7, 2018, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a June 1, 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 During the period at issue, Complainant had been terminated from her Agency position as a Casual Mail Handler in Coppell, Texas. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On June 1, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into the instant settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The June 1, 2018 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: 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. 2019001057 2 USPS management and all parties agree to change PS Form 50 to indicate employee will be eligible to be rehired by USPS. This will be completed and submitted within the 14 days allotted. By letter to the Agency dated August 22, 2018, Complainant alleged breach, and requested that the Agency implement the terms of the subject agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to rehire Complainant to the position of Casual Mail Handler as she determined had been promised in the settlement agreement. In its September 7, 2018 final decision, the Agency found no breach. This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant’s representative argues that he was “under the impression” that the settlement agreement provided for an obligation, at the first available opportunity, by the Agency to re-hire Complainant into the position she held prior to her termination. 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, the record indicates that the Agency terminated Complainant from her position on March 23, 2018, due in part to her poor attendance. Complainant initiated EEO counseling regarding her termination the same day. In an attempt at resolution, Complainant and the Agency entered into the subject settlement agreement. The Agency agreed to change the Notification of Personnel Action Form 50 documenting Complainant’s termination to reflect instead that Complainant voluntarily resigned from her position thereby making her eligible for rehire pursuant to Agency policy. Complainant argues the settlement agreement required the Agency to re-hire Complainant into her former position. In addition, Complainant argues that the Agency breached the June 1, 2018 agreement when it failed to process the Form 50 within 14 days or by June 15, 2018. 2019001057 3 Upon review, we find that the agreement only obligated the Agency to change Complainant’s Form 50 to reflect that she was eligible for re-hire. The agreement did not include any affirmative obligation by the Agency to actually re-hire Complainant and place her into her former position. If this was what Complainant was seeking, she should have had express language to this effect in the settlement agreement. We do note that the record discloses that the Form 50 was processed by the Agency on June 28, 2018, about two weeks past the deadline in the agreement. However, the Commission has found substantial compliance with the terms of a settlement agreement where agencies have committed, in good faith, a technical breach of a provision of the agreement that did not undermine its purpose or effect. See Hoyland v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103271 (Dec. 2, 2010). The Commission has also found that the 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. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120073654 (August 17, 2009) (citing Lazarte v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (Apr. 25, 1996)); Sortino v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05950721 (Nov. 21, 1996). Here, we find substantial compliance despite the brief delay in implementation. Accordingly, the Agency's finding of no breach of the subject settlement agreement is AFFIRMED for the reasons discussed above. 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. 2019001057 4 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 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 9, 2019 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation