0120121998
08-31-2012
Armando Morales, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Armando Morales,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121998
Agency No. 1B006005110
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated February 29, 2012, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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 record indicates that Complainant and five other employees1 entered into a settlement agreement with the Agency. It appears that Complainant and the other employees alleged that another employee, a mailhandler ("UJ"), harassed them. On June 10, 2010, Complainant, the other employees and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [UJ] will be temporarily detailed to another office on St. Croix for ninety (90) days subject to review with the option for another ninety (90) days upon her return to duty. All rules and regulations must be abided by to include no illegal activities [or] any violent behavior. Any inappropriate behavior will result in disciplinary action up to a proposed removal.
(2) In addition, upon the return of [UJ] to the Kings Hill Post Office from the temporary detail, she will be reassigned to a later reporting time.
By letter to the Agency dated January 17, 2012, Complainant and the other employees alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that their complaint be reinstated. Specifically, Complainant alleged that when UJ returned to work on January 13, 2012, she reported to the Kingshill Post Office in St. Croix.
In its February 29, 2012 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency found UJ had been out of work from March 17, 2010 to July 6, 2010. She returned to work on July 7, 2010 and was given a later start time. UJ then went out on leave until her return in January 2012. Upon her return in January 2012, she was instructed to report at 5:00 a.m. at the Kingshill Post Office instead of the Kingshill Annex. Management was working to ensure there was limited interaction between UJ and the employees.
The instant appeal followed. In his appeal, Complainant recounts events involving UJ, but gives no dates. It is not clear which of these are recent events or events prior to the execution of the settlement agreement. Complainant states that UJ insists on taking straps off of letters and he is worried about safety. Complainant states that UJ has stared at him and closed the double doors while a trailer was being off loaded.
ANALYSIS
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).
In the instant case, UJ was out of the office for nearly a year and a half, which was more than the 90-day time period it was agreed she would be away on a detail as set forth in the agreement. Further, the record shows that UJ's reporting time was changed per the agreement when she reported to work on July 7, 2010. She was then again out of the office until January 2012. As such, the time period contemplated by the agreement has elapsed. Thus, the Commission finds that the Agency is not in breach of the agreement.
If Complainant feels that he is being subjected to new acts of harassment, he should contact an EEO counselor if he wishes to pursue the matter.
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach 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
August 31, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The other employees also filed appeals with the Commission. The appeals are being processed individually.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121998
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121998