0120071220
03-15-2007
Terry Miller, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Terry Miller,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120071220
Agency No. 6X000001406
DECISION
JURISDICTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 21, 2006, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the April 21, 2006 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. 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:
An additional Southwest Area Human Resources Analyst position,
EAS-23, will be created for sole purposes of this Agreement
and for Complainant as incumbent only. Complainant will be
voluntarily reassigned to that position as of February 4, 2006,
and will become a Southwest Area employee and no longer be a
Headquarters employee. A PS Form 50 will be cut reflecting this
voluntary reassignment retroactive to that date. This position
reports to the Southwest Area Manager of human resources. Funding
for this position will be temporarily paid through Headquarters
EEO Compliance and Appeals Programs through regular finance
processes. Complainant will voluntarily be reassigned to the
first EAS-23 position, except for a safety position, within the
Southwest Area Human Resources department which becomes vacant
from the date of this agreement. At such point, Headquarters'
funding of the position will terminate unless an earlier date is
otherwise agreed to by Headquarters' management and Southwest Area
management to switch funding responsibilities to the Southwest
area. Funding of the position will be terminated upon
Complainant's reassignment to or acceptance of another position.
Complainant also received $10,000, attorney's fees and other benefits
as a result of the settlement agreement.
By letter to the agency dated October 1, 2006, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency reinstate the processing of her complaint. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the Corporate Manager of Personnel threatened
to pull the funding for her position if she worked on a certain project.
In its November 21, 2006 FAD, the agency concluded that it was not in
breach of the settlement agreement. The agency noted that complainant
never lost funding for her position and that the agreement did not
prohibit discussions between the Southwest Area and Headquarters over
the funding of the position.
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, complainant is not alleging that she lost funding for
her position but only that she was threatened with such. The Commission
notes also that the agreement does not state that complainant was entitled
to work on any specific project.
CONCLUSION
The Commission finds that the settlement agreement was not breached. 1
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
March 15, 2007
__________________
Date
1 Complainant is reminded that all monies and benefits that she received
from the settlement agreement would have to be returned in the event
that her complaint was reinstated for processing.
??
??
??
??
2
0120071220
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120071220