0120112044
09-13-2012
Renee H. Dubbert, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
Renee H. Dubbert,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112044
Hearing No. 541-2010-00030X
Agency No. 4E-800-0130-09
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency properly determined that it did not breach a settlement agreement that the parties entered into resolving Complainant's complaint. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's determination not to reinstate Complainant's complaint.
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
a. The Postal Service shall credit [Complainant] with 20 days of annual leave and 10 days of sick leave (160 hours annual leave, 80 hours of sick leave).
b. Effective July 31, 2010, [Complainant] will cease working her current detail and begin a position as Supervisor Customer Service at the Harris Park Station in Westminster, Colorado, at which time a Form 50 will issue reflecting the new position.
c. Within the next 30 days, [Complainant] will contact the identified Manager Post Office Operations, to schedule a meeting to discuss her interest in OIC and detail opportunities.
Thereafter, Complainant claimed that the Agency did not comply with the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant indicated that the Agency did not negotiate the settlement in good faith since they failed to disclose Postmaster vacancies available at the time of the settlement agreement. Complainant stated that on September 22, 2010, she discovered that there were several Postmaster vacancies in Northern Colorado during the settlement agreement.
The Agency responded that it did not breach the settlement agreement. The Agency stated that according to the Manager of Labor Relations, every effort was made to identify offers that were available in the locations Complainant had indicated she would be interested in. He indicated that a Postmaster position in Frederick, Colorado, was vacant at the time of the settlement, but the position was being reserved for an employee out of the Ft. Collins area who was facing a reduction in force action. Also, despite Complainant's contentions, a Postmaster position in Firestone, Colorado, was not vacated until August 6, 2010, i.e., after the settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
Complainant claimed that the Agency entered into the settlement agreement at issue in bad faith by not disclosing Postmaster vacancies at that time. Upon review, we find no evidence of bad faith, misrepresentation, or mistake on the part of either party at the time of the settlement agreement. Complainant has not shown there was a vacancy or that if such a vacancy existed it somehow influenced the ultimate agreement reached. We note that Complainant does not allege breach of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision not to reinstate the EEO complaint is AFFIRMED.
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
9/13/12
__________________
Date
2
0120112044
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120112044