01A02015
05-26-2000
Barbara Ragan, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Barbara Ragan v. United States Postal Service
01A02015
May 26, 2000
Barbara Ragan, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A02015
) Agency No. 4-H-237-0265-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated December 14, 1999, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the August 7, 1999, settlement
agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Supervisor] agrees to request the microfiche for complainant's pay
period 8 today;
(2) [Supervisor] agrees to review microfiche and complete the pay
adjustment form that day;
(3) [Complainant] agrees to sign the pay adjustment form on Friday,
8/13/99, and [Supervisor] agrees to file it that day;
(4) [ Supervisor and complainant] agree that she should have all of her
pay adjustments in her check by September 3, 1999 pay check;
(5) [Supervisor] agrees to follow-up with District Finance Office if the
money is not in the paycheck and submit whatever is missing the same day;
(6) [Supervisor] agrees to give complainant copies of paperwork submitted;
and,
(7) [Complainant] agrees to withdraw EEO complaint 4-H-327-0265-99 once
her pay is paid.
By letters to the agency dated August 18, 1999, and September 3, 1999,
complainant alleged that the agency breached the settlement agreement, and
requested that the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency re-designated 10 hours of annual leave
in pay period 8 as Leave Without Pay (LWOP) instead of "non-scheduled
leave,"as agreed upon during mediation. Complainant also contends that
the agency failed to make two adjustments in pay period 2 involving 8 �
hours of straight time, and 6 hours of overtime. In several subsequent
letters to the agency, complainant further claimed that the agency's
many adjustments to pay period 2 did not fully provide the relief agreed
to under the settlement agreement. Finally, complainant claimed that
provision 6 of the settlement agreement was breached by the agency when
Supervisor failed to provide copies of the paperwork submitted.
In its December 14, 1999 FAD, the agency denied that it had breached
the settlement agreement, concluding that all paperwork had been twice
submitted for processing, although Supervisor failed to provide copies
claiming that the xerox machine was broken. The FAD also indicates
that Supervisor re-designated the 10 hours of annual leave to LWOP,
noting that the settlement agreement did not specify "non-scheduled"
leave. On appeal, complainant submits copies of pay and leave records
to demonstrate that the agency has failed to comply with the settlement
agreement.
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 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).
The Commission determines that the settlement agreement addresses only
adjustments to pay period 8. Therefore, the agency satisfied the terms
of the settlement agreement when Supervisor reviewed pay period 8 pay and
leave records; when he submitted a request for adjustment to pay period 8
consisting of the re-designation of 10 hours of annual leave to 10 hours
of LWOP; and when this change was implemented. We are not persuaded by
complainant's argument that re-designation to "non-scheduled" leave was
agreed upon during the mediation, and understood by the parties, because
such an interpretation should have been reduced to writing as part of
the settlement agreement. Jenkins-Nye v. General Service Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01951903 (March 4, 1987).
Moreover, although the agency has made many adjustments to pay period
2 pursuant to complainant's many requests, we note that no adjustments
to pay period 2 are provided for under the settlement agreement, and
that the agency was not obligated to make these adjustments. Again,
if this was the intent of the parties, it should have be included in
the settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye, supra.
Finally, although Supervisor may not have provided complainant with copies
of the paperwork contemporaneously with their submission, complainant
clearly does have these copies in her possession because she submitted
them as part of her appeal.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we find that the settlement
agreement at issue has not been breached by the agency, and we, therefore,
AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 26, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.