0120082391
07-02-2010
Cathy V. Thomas, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Cathy V. Thomas,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120082391
Agency No. 1H381001408
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a Letter of
Determination by the Agency dated April 7, 2008, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the January 16, 2008 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
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Management Official] will coordinate a conference involving [EAP
Consultant], [Complainant] and [Management Official] for consultation
to break down communications barriers between supervisor and employee.
By letter to the Agency dated February 29, 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 was in breach of the settlement because the
Agency failed to hold the conference at the time of the complaint due
to a scheduling conflict.
In its Letter of Determination on April 7, 2008, the Agency concluded that
there was no breach of the settlement agreement. The Agency determined
that because it had scheduled a conference to discuss the communication
barriers between Complainant and her supervisor, the Agency had fully
complied with the settlement agreement.
On appeal, Complainant states that the conference, agreed to by
both parties in the settlement, was not sufficient to rectify the
alleged disparate treatment and retaliation that Complainant had been
experiencing. Complainant contends that the session held on March 12,
2008, was not "enough" because her problems with her supervisor have
not been resolved.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
Upon review, we find that the Agency fulfilled its obligations under
the settlement agreement. The purpose of the conference was to allow
Complainant and her supervisor to consult in order to break down
communication barriers between the two. Complainant acknowledged that
the consultation conference was held with her supervisor on March 12,
2008. Although Complainant believes the conference was not "enough"
because she is still experiencing problems with her supervisor, we do
not find that this is evidence that the Agency did not comply with the
settlement agreement. In this regard, we note that the agreement did
not guarantee any particular outcome.1 Thus, because the Agency held the
conference as per the agreement, the Agency has fully complied with the
terms of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
The Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's Letter of Determination finding no
breach of settlement.
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
____7/2/10______________
Date
1 Clearly, if Complainant believes that she is being subjected to
subsequent acts of discrimination she may contact an EEO Counselor
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614. 504(c).
??
??
??
??
2
0120082391
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120082391