0120101591
05-24-2011
Barbara L. Bennett, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.
Barbara L. Bennett,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120101591
Agency No. 4B030002609
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the Agency dated January 25, 2010, 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.
BACKGROUND
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination,
Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO
complaint process. On October 21, 2009, Complainant and the Agency
entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Manager C] will discuss with [Complainant’s] supervisor uniform
standards and to enforce those standards equally and consistently among
all employees in the facility; remind him to discuss work matters with
employees, and [Complainant] in particular, privately and not in front
of customers of other employees.
(2) C and [Complainant’s] supervisor will discuss acceptable
uniform standards at a staff meeting called for that purpose.
(3) C will submit a work order to have the “crash doors” repaired
because they may be a safety hazard.
(4) The warning Letter in September 2009 regarding failure to dispatch
the express mail; C will investigate the matter to determine the reasons
for the Letter. If C is satisfied that the reasons for the Letter are
consistent with [Complainant’s] statements, the Letter will be removed.
(5) C will report to [named individual] that [Complainant] doesn’t
“feel safe” working at her assigned facility although C and [other
named individual] are not sure that the matter rises to a physical
threat level.
By letter to the Agency dated December 3, 2009, 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 her supervisor discussed her performance with another
employee on the workroom floor; safety and uniform requirements were
not satisfied; the staff meeting did not take place; and the door had
not been repaired.
In its January 25, 2010 FAD, the Agency concluded ot was not in breach
of the agreement. Specifically, the Agency stated that Complainant
misconstrued a discussion that took place on the workroom floor and
that it did not involve Complainant’s performance. On December 1,
2009, a staff meeting was held and uniform standards were discussed
and employees were told that they had to follow the uniform policy.
The Agency stated a work order was sent to repair the crash doors as
stipulated in the agreement. The Agency also noted that the Letter of
Warning was expunged from Complainant’s files. Further, Complainant’s
concerns regarding her safety were discussed with the named individual
and the District Human Resources Manager.
In her appeal, Complainant basically asserts that not enough was done,
and that things were not investigated thoroughly.
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, the Commission finds that the Agency is in compliance
with the agreement. It held a meeting on uniform standards, put in a work
order for the crash doors, reported Complainant’s safety concerns,
and expunged the Letter of Warning. While Complainant disagrees the
she misconstrued the discussion by her supervisor, she did not present
evidence to the contrary.
The Agency’s decision 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
May 24, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120101591
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120101591