0120072812
01-19-2010
Maria L. Reading, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Maria L. Reading,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072812
Agency No. 4F-920-0021-06
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision
by the agency dated May 15, 2007, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the December 16, 2005 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. Management will pay [complainant] 2.46 hours at the straight
time rate within 14 days of today's date (for PP20WK2 FY 2005).
2. Management will pay [complainant] an additional lump sum of
$105.70 within 14 days of today's date
By contact with the agency dated April 12, 20071, 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 fulfill the terms of a "gentleman's
agreement" that she claimed was reached by the parties during mediation
that took place on December 16, 2005.
In its May 15, 2007 Letter of Determination, the agency concluded that
the terms contained in the settlement agreement of December 16, 2005,
had been fulfilled. The agency noted that complainant did not allege
breach of the settlement agreement. Rather, the agency noted complainant
accused the agency of failing to keep additional terms that were not
contained in the written settlement agreement. The agency found that
the only terms by which the agency and complainant were bound following
the mediation were those contained in the written agreement signed by
the parties at the time, and that any unwritten terms were unenforceable.
The agency determined that no breach of the settlement agreement occurred
as alleged.
On appeal, complainant states that her understanding of the agency's
alternative dispute resolution process is that the parties control the
settlement process and that in her case, the parties agreed to both
the written terms and to additional terms left as a "gentlemen's" or
unwritten agreement. Complainant states that the unwritten portion
has not been fulfilled by the agency.
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 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).
In the instant case, we find that complainant does not allege that the
agency has not complied terms of the settlement agreement signed by
the parties on December 16, 2005. We find nothing in the agreement
that refers to an additional written agreement or that the parties
have agreed to any terms not specifically expressed in the agreement.
We note, as does the agency that EEOC Regulations provide that the
only settlement terms that are enforceable are those that the parties
memorialize in writing.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's determination that no breach of the
December 16, 2005 settlement agreement occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 19, 2010
__________________
Date
1 Complainant submitted a pre-complaint counseling form as her notice
to the agency that breach of the settlement agreement at issue had
occurred.
??
??
??
??
2
0120072812
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120072812