Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 17, 2015

01-2015-1473-0500 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 17, 2015)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120151473

Agency No. 4E-980-0011-15

DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency
dated March 4, 2015, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a December 3, 2014
settlement agreement. 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 claim, Complainant worked as a Letter Carrier at the
Agency’s postal facility in Renton, Washington. Believing that the Agency subjected him to
unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO
process. On December 3, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

Management will remove [Complainant] off [delivery route] Opt 2693, effective
12/03/14.

By letter to the Agency dated December 15, 2014, 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 failed to take Complainant off Opt
2693 effective 12/03/14, as per the settlement agreement. In its March 4, 2015 Letter of
Determination, the Agency concluded that Complainant had been taken off his Opt route as per
the settlement agreement, and that no breach had occurred.

0120151473

2

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).
The first part of the settlement agreement states that management will remove Complainant
from Opt 2693 effective December 3, 2014. The Agency’s Manager of Customer Service
Operations testified by affidavit that Complainant was taken off Opt 2693 on December 3,
2014. The record shows, however, that on December 4, 2014, Complainant was again
assigned to route Opt 2693 for 3 days, in apparent violation of the settlement agreement. He
was reassigned to a different Opt route on December 8,

2014.
We find that Complainant has not established that the Agency breached the agreement as
alleged. Specifically, the record indicates that upon learning that the Complainant was still
selected for Opt 2693 after the settlement, the Agency made an expeditious effort to remove
him from that route, and did so, some three days later. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.504(b) provides that an Agency has 35 days from the receipt of a complainant's
allegation of noncompliance to resolve the matter, and respond to the complainant. The
Commission has interpreted this provision as allowing the agency the opportunity to cure any
breach that may have occurred. See Covington v. United States Postal Serv.

, EEOC Appeal
No. 01913211 (September 30, 1991). Here, we find that to the extent that the Agency
breached the agreement, its subsequent actions cured the breach.

CONCLUSION
The Agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.

0120151473

3

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.

0120151473

4
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

Date
July 17, 2015