0120142949
02-06-2015
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142949
Agency No. 1E-981-0017-13
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated July 18, 2014, 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
On August 13, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant agrees] to organize his day and request any needed tool through [the Lead Manager] who would contact [the Manager] to provide access to the needed tool or shop facility access;
(4) [The Lead Manager] will send the Overtime Desired List each quarter and holiday sign up;
(5) [Complainant] shall provide a list of twelve offices to [the Lead Manager] for research on work orders (active) or requests. [The Lead Manager] shall respond within one week;
(9) [Management would] provide access to the general shop for [Complainant] for projects of extended length with prior notice;
(10) [Management would] repair or create lock box with signup sheet for vehicle and shop key for [Complainant]; and
(12) [The Postmaster] shall investigate the broken air conditioner in [the] tool and parts room.
By letter to the Agency dated October 9, 2013, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement,1 and requested that his complaint be reinstated. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide him with suitable tools and timely access. He stated that the overtime desired list was not provided in a timely manner, and that the managers denied him access to necessary gauges and equipment and were slow to respond to his list of offices for research on active work orders or requests.
In its July 18, 2014 FAD, the Agency concluded that "the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled." The Agency reasoned that "while there was a delay before management completed the requirements to the settlement dated August 13, 2013, the terms of the settlement agreement were implemented and the breach was cured.
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 that the terms of the agreement are clear, valid and binding.
In the instant case, the agreement required the Agency to take certain steps: (coordinate between managers, send the ODL each quarter, respond to his list of work orders, repair the lock box, provide access to the general shop, and "investigate" the broken air conditioner in the tool and parts room.)
The Agency provided documentation that it complied with each of these requirements. The agreement did not expressly state that the tools or access would be provided in the manner that Complainant anticipated. The record also shows that the Postmaster considered Complainant's request that air conditioning be provided in the storage room where Complainant opted to work. The Postmaster averred that that the building specifications did not indicate any existing duct work to the room in question. Complainant disagrees with the Agency's determination of compliance, but Complainant has not identified any item that remained outstanding. Instead, Complainant asserts that the equipment and tools were outdated or broken and that he was not provided the access he was expecting.
Further, we find that the Agency took reasonable measures to cure any breach by continuing to provide tools, responses and access to comply with the agreement.
The Commission has held that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b), an agency has 35 days from the receipt of notice of noncompliance to resolve the matter, or cure any breach that occurred. The Commission has further held that if an agency cures a breach during the 35 day period following the breach notification, it will be deemed to be in compliance. Eckholm v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091193 (April 29, 2009).
We find that to the extent that the Agency's actions constituted breach, the Agency's follow-up actions cured any such breach.
For these reasons, we find that the Agency did not breach the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Letter of Determination.
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 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 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
February 6, 2015
__________________
Date
1 Although the record did not contain a copy of the agreement, the Agency's Letter of Determination listed the terms. Inasmuch as there appears to be no dispute as to the wording of the agreement, we find the record is sufficient for us to issue a determination.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120142949
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120142949