01982472
04-13-1999
Clara S. Arpaia, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Clara S. Arpaia v. United States Postal Service
01982472
April 13, 1999
Clara S. Arpaia, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982472
) Agency No. 1-J-1281-92
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision not to reinstate
her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination that the parties
had settled. See 29 C.F.R. ��1614.504, .402(a); EEOC Order No. 960,
as amended.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached a settlement
agreement.
BACKGROUND
The record indicates that appellant filed a formal complaint dated May
1, 1992, alleging discrimination when she was not trained as an Acting
Supervisor. Thereafter, on October 13, 1993, the parties settled the
complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that
appellant, a Contract Technician, would be given priority consideration
if the position of Contract Technician is upgraded to an EAS position;
and if it is not upgraded, she would be given priority consideration
for a supervisory position if the subject position was created in this
"area of Procurement."
In a letter dated August 1, 1997, appellant indicated that at the time of
the settlement agreement, she did not know that Procurement was eliminated
from the agency's matrix in 1992. Despite this, stated appellant, the
agency still had purchasing or other stockroom positions which could
be classified as being in the area of Procurement; and she asked for
clarification of the definition of "Procurement" under the terms of the
settlement agreement. Appellant also requested the agency's compliance
with the terms of the settlement agreement in that on or about July 15,
1997, she applied but was not interviewed for a Purchasing Specialist,
EAS-17 position in the agency Northeast Area Office. Appellant also
indicated that in 1994, a male employee was placed into the position
of Manager of Maintenance Operations, and during the past four years,
she might have been bypassed for other management positions depending
on the definition of "Procurement."
On February 28, 1998, the agency issued its decision finding no breach.
The agency stated that Procurement was changed as a result of its
restructuring during 1992/93, but only in name and the way business
was done. The agency stated that settlements were binding on the
installation where they were made and were not all inclusive to cover
the entire Performance Cluster, the Northeast Area, or the entire
Postal Service. The agency indicated that the settlement agreement
only applied to appellant's former workplace, the New Haven Post Office,
at the time of the settlement agreement and her present workplace, the
Southern Connecticut Processing & Distribution Center. The agency stated
that since appellant had not been denied consideration for a supervisory
position in those workplaces, it did not breach the settlement agreement.
On appeal, appellant, through her attorney, contends that the settlement
agreement should be set aside due to impossibility of performance.
Specifically, appellant argues that since Procurement was eliminated
from the matrix in 1992, prior to the settlement agreement, appellant
could not be afforded the opportunity to be given priority consideration
if a supervisory position is created in the area of Procurement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504 provides that if the complainant
believes that the agency failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, the complainant should notify the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement
agreement, within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that
the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,
alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing
from the point processing ceased.
The agency shall resolve the matter and respond to the complainant,
in writing. If the agency has not responded to the complainant, in
writing, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt
to resolve the matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for
a determination as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of
the settlement agreement or final decision.
The Commission has held that settlement agreements are contracts between
the appellant and the agency and it is the intent of the parties as
expressed in the contract, and not some unexpressed intention, that
controls the contract's construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In addition, the
Commission generally follows the rule that if a 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 v. Building Engineering Services,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). The Commission has followed this rule
when interpreting settlement agreements. The Commission's policy in
this regard is based on the premise that the face of the agreement best
reflects the understanding of the parties.
We find no settlement breach in the instant case. Upon review of the
settlement agreement, we find that it does not provide for a specific
time period during which the agency was obligated to give appellant
priority consideration. The Commission has held that, where a complainant
bargained for a specific job offer which did not include terms related
to the length of service, the conditions of termination or transfer, or
many other elements of the employment relationship which could have been
agreed upon, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions
of the parties as requiring the agency to employ the complainant in
the identical job forever. See Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC
Request No. 05910576 (August 30, 1991). The Commission further stated
that, in that situation, the complainant's transfer two years after
the settlement agreement, did not contravene the clear terms of the
settlement agreement. Id. In the present case, appellant alleged
that she was not given priority consideration on or about July 15,
1997, which was approximately 4 years after the settlement agreement.
Under the circumstances before us, we find that the denial of the subject
priority consideration did not constitute a breach of the settlement
agreement since it occurred beyond the reasonable time period during which
the agency was contractually obligated to give appellant such priority
consideration. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged denial of priority
consideration in 1994, and during the past four years, appellant failed
to raise these in a timely manner and/or to indicate specific positions
for which she was denied priority consideration. Based on the foregoing,
we find that the agency has not breached the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
April 13, 1999
____________________
Date Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations