01a54205
10-19-2005
Susanna Gonzales, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Susanna Gonzales v. United States Postal Service
01A54205
October 19, 2005
.
Susanna Gonzales,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54205
Agency No. 4F-945-0037-05
DECISION
The record reveals that on February 19, 2005, complainant and the agency
entered into a settlement agreement regarding complainant's EEO complaint.
The settlement provided in pertinent part as follows:
Management agrees to assign [Complainant] to the Carmel-by-the-Sea
Office, subject to the medical release to return to work, for a
period of six months. The schedule will be 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday
through Thursday, with an hour for lunch; and Sunday from 7:15 a.m. -
3:45 p.m. with a half-hour for lunch at the Main Office. Duties will
include window duties, boxing mail, preparation of outgoing mail, and
other duties as assigned on Monday - Thursday. Duties on Sunday include
unloading the truck, breaking down mail, pulling drops and distribution.
Should circumstances change with [Coworker's] bid, we agree to review
and amend the settlement promptly.
By letter dated April 1, 2005, complainant claimed that a coworker
informed her that the employees do not take lunch on Sundays and holidays.
In a separate letter dated April 1, 2005, complainant also claimed breach
of the settlement agreement with regard to the Postmaster requiring that
she operate the DPS (Delivery Point Sequence) machine on Sundays.
The agency issued a final action dated April 22, 2005, finding
no breach of the settlement agreement. The agency stated that the
settlement agreement included distribution work as part of Sunday duties.
The agency noted that the Postmaster stated that distribution work cannot
be done without using the DPS machine. The agency further noted that
the Postmaster stated that she instructed complainant to take a half-hour
lunch on Sundays.
Complainant argues that the settlement agreement involves manual
distribution and that delivery point sequence is an automation mail
processing function. Complainant also claims on appeal that the
settlement agreement was breached when she was sent for training on two
days outside her tour hours.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
The agency stated that the DPS machines are used in distribution work
and that complainant cannot do distribution work without using the
DPS machine. The agency further stated that complainant was sent
for two days of DPS training so that she could learn to operate the
machine properly. The Commission finds that the settlement agreement
did not restrict complainant's duties to manual distribution and
that there is no provision in the settlement agreement preventing
complainant from being assigned work on the DPS machine. Furthermore,
the agency's action of sending complainant to two days of training
outside of her tour hours does not constitute a material breach of
the settlement agreement. With regard to a lunch break on Sundays,
the agency stated that complainant was instructed to take a half-hour
lunch on Sundays pursuant to the settlement agreement. Complainant has
not argued that anyone other than her coworker(s) informed her of a
lunch schedule different than that provided in the settlement agreement.
Complainant has not shown that agency management somehow restricted her
lunch schedule as set forth in the settlement agreement. We find that
complainant has not refuted the agency's positions regarding the matters
at issue. Therefore, we find that complainant has not established that
the agency breached the settlement agreement.
The agency's decision finding no breach of the February 19, 2005
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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 (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
October 19, 2005
__________________
Date