Amy L. Rodehaver, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 10, 2008
0120083051 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 10, 2008)

0120083051

12-10-2008

Amy L. Rodehaver, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Amy L. Rodehaver,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083051

Agency No. 4C-440-0069-08

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

agency decision by the agency dated June 13, 2008, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of the March 20, 2008 settlement agreement into

which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402, .405, and .504(b).

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) Management agrees that clerk work will be worked by clerks

according to overtime and craft contracts[;]

(2) Management agrees to provide e-mail access in accordance to job

responsibility[;]

(3) Management agrees to provide/enroll uniform allowance program

for counselee[; and]

(4) Management agrees to provide necessary training programs.

By correspondence to the agency dated May 8, 2008, 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 issue her uniform allowance

for the current year; and it scheduled a rural carrier to perform clerk

duties on complainant's nonscheduled day of Wednesday, rather than pay

complainant overtime wages.

In its June 13, 2008 final decision, the agency concluded that it was in

compliance with the March 20 settlement agreement. The agency stated

that complainant's Postmaster (P1) ordered her four uniform shirts and

three uniform pants that should have lasted through June 2008, and, as

of May 10, 2008, a new uniform allowance was pending for complainant.

Further, the agency stated that P1 wanted to reduce unit overtime so he

used a part-time flexible clerk from a different office for that purpose.

The agency stated that, on complainant's non-scheduled Wednesdays,

it used two employees to deliver Express Mail, work on labels for the

neighborhood delivery and collection box unit, answer telephones, and

prepare travel reports for rural carriers. Further, the agency noted

that the settlement agreement did not provide guaranteed overtime for

complainant. The instant appeal from complainant followed.

On appeal, complainant stated that paragraph (1) is the only provision

that remains in contention. She stated that the agency continues to

assign clerk duties to those outside of the craft and that such is

"financially detrimental and thus discriminatory to the craft employee

that is responsible for the duties performed."

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 failed to meet her

burden of proving breach. See Vega v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01986613 (June 30, 2000). Based on the evidence in the record,

the Commission is not persuaded that the agency breached the settlement

agreement as complainant alleged here. The record does not show that

the agency assigned duties contradictory to paragraph (1). Further,

it appears that the subsequent incidents regarding denial of overtime

may be better addressed as a separate complaint, rather than as a

breach allegation. See Bindal v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05900225 (August 9, 1990). Therefore, complainant may raise her

claim of further discrimination as a new, separate EEO claim, if she

has not already done so.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 (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

December 10, 2008

__________________

Date

2

0120083051

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120083051