0120172697
11-02-2017
Charles G.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Charles G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172697
Agency No. 4G335000817
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 30, 2017, 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
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was an employee at the Agency's Apopka facility in Apopka, Florida.
On November 22, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) "Both parties agree the Apopka facility is not an option for continued employment for [Complainant] at this time;"
(2) "[The named Postmaster] agreed to be a reference for [Complainant] as he pursues other employment opportunities in the Postal Service;"
(3) Parties agree to exchange contact information "to follow-up with each other on [any] position that [Complainant] apply (sic) for in the Postal Service that he is qualified for;"
(5) "[Complainant] has applied for positions in the Orlando District and South Florida District. The position in the Hialeah Office that [Complainant] applied for, [[the Postmaster] knows the Postmaster and agrees to contact her personally... and will contact the Hialeah Postmaster as soon as he has the information;"
(6) "[Complainant] understands the position in Hialeah is an internal position and he may not qualify for it;" and
(7) "[The Postmaster] agrees to speak with his supervisor regarding openings in the Winter Haven Office and if there are openings that [Complainant] qualifies for, [the Postmaster will recommend [Complainant] for the position."
By letter to the Agency dated March 22, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency "advance USPS EEO case No. 4G-335-008-17 to the next step of investigation due to a breach of the mediation agreement." Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Postmaster "did not comply with the terms of our agreement" when he failed to respond to Complainant's emails and suggested that Complainant retake the test to increase his score.
In its June 30, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that it fully complied with the terms of the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that the Postmaster sent a reference recommendation on Complainant's behalf to two Postal officials of the South Florida District. This appeal followed.
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).
We find the Agreement to be valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the record shows that the Postmaster did call the Hialeah Post Office to speak with the Postmaster whom he knew. When he was informed that she no longer served in that position, the Postmaster called two other officials, including the Manager, Customer Services. The Postmaster submitted a reference for Complainant to them, along with Complainant's information, on February 24, 2017. Complainant was not offered reemployment, apparently because his score was not high enough to qualify for an interview at the other locations.
To the extent that Complainant believes that the Postmaster breached the Agreement when the Postmaster did not respond to all of the emails Complainant sent to him or when the Postmaster suggested to Complainant that Complainant retake the test to enhance his score, we find that those matters are outside the scope of this Agreement. The Agreement required an exchange of contact information, which was done, and that Complainant stay in touch with the Postmaster. The Agreement did not mandate that the Postmaster respond to all of Complainant's emails. Moreover, by its expressed terms, the Agreement recognized that the position in Hialeah is one for which Complainant may not qualify. In this case, the record does not support Complainant's claim that the Agency breached the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Letter of Determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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 tends 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
November 2, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120172697
5
0120172697