01A13982_r
07-05-2002
Beatrice Collins, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Beatrice Collins v. United States Postal Service
01A13982
July 5, 2002
.
Beatrice Collins,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13982
Agency No. 4F-926-0048-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision (FAD) dated May 15, 2001, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of a March 13, 2001 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:
1. Management will provide [complainant] with the procedures relating
to documentation required for illnesses over 3 days pertaining to all
employees including managers.
2. Upon [complainant's] supplying management with the required
documentation regarding the period in question, management will process
a payroll adjustment.
By letter to the agency postmarked March 29, 2001, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to accept her medical
documentation regarding sick leave absences.
In its May 15, 2001 final decision, the agency found no settlement breach.
The agency determined that in order to ascertain what complainant must
submit as �required documentation� for her absences as identified in
provision 2, a review of the governing Employee and Labor Relations
Manual (ELM) was necessary. The agency found that the minimal medical
documentation tendered by complainant failed to meet the requirements
of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which mandates that for
absences over three days, employees must submit medical documentation
from a physician detailing the nature of their sickness or injury.
On appeal, complainant contends that because she only missed three days
under sick leave, she is not required to submit a physician's detailed
medical documentation regarding her illness under the Employee and
Labor Relations Manual. Moreover, complainant argues that the submitted
physician's note documenting that she was under his professional care
during the relevant time period meets the Employee and Labor Relations
Manual's requirements for sick leave absences under four days.
In response, the agency contends that it has a practice of merging sick
leave with holiday and approved leave in order to calculate an employee's
total number of absences and what type of documentation is required.
The agency argues that because of this agency practice, complainant is
required to submit detailed medical documentation because she was absent
from work for a total of five days, November 20, 2000 through November 24,
2000, which was comprised of three days in which complainant claims she
was sick (November 20 - 22, 2000); the Thanksgiving holiday (November 23,
2000); and one day of annual leave (November 24, 2000).
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).
Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency breached the terms of
the settlement agreement. The record contains a copy of a physician's
note verifying that complainant was under his professional care on
November 20, 2000, and could not return to work until November 27, 2000.
The record reveals that for absences of three days or less, the governing
Employee and Labor Relations Manual allows employees merely to submit
statements explaining the absences. Moreover, only for absences totaling
over three days and for restricted sick leave does the Employee and Labor
Relations Manual impose a requirement that the medical documentation
provide an explanation of the nature of an employee's illness or injury
sufficient to indicate to management that the employee was unable to
perform her normal duties for the period of the absences.
However, our review of the chapter of the Employee and Labor Relations
Manual governing the standards for medical documentation, upon which the
agency relied in construing that complainant did not provide �required
documentation� in accordance with provision 2 of the settlement agreement,
only governs sick leave, not holidays nor annual leave, which are covered
in separate chapters.
We find that complainant's submission of a physician's note documenting
that she was under his professional care during her three days of sick
leave constitutes an explanation for her absence during this period, and
therefore meets the Employee and Labor Relations Manual's standards for
absences of three days or less. Thus, the agency's failure to process
complainant's payroll adjustment constitutes a breach of the settlement
agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no breach is REVERSED, and the matter
is hereby REMANDED to the agency for further processing consistent with
the ORDER set forth herein.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following action:
The agency is ORDERED to process and effectuate complainant's payroll
adjustment, reflecting the three days of accredited sick leave for
November 20, 21, and 22, 2000. This adjustment shall be processed within
thirty (30) calendar days from the date this decision becomes final.
A copy of a notification to complainant that an adjustment of accredited
sick leave has been made for November 20 - 22, 2000, shall be sent to
the Compliance Officer as referenced below
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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
July 5, 2002
__________________
Date