Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 30, 2013

0120113710 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 30, 2013)

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

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120113710

Agency No. 1C-251-0002-11

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency
dated May 19, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the March 11, 2011
settlement agreement into which the parties entered. For the reasons set forth, we AFFIRM
the Agency’s decision, finding no breach of the settlement agreement.

BACKGROUND

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

Within Thirty (30) Days from the signing of this agreement the Manager of Human
Resources and the Plant Manager will conduct a meeting with [Complainant] and a
representative of her choice to discuss the claims brought forth in this complaint.

In a letter dated May 7, 2011, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the
March 11, 2011 settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its
terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that her EEO Settlement Agreement Pre-Complaint
was not met within the prescribed time frame of 30 days from the signing on March 11, 2011.
In its decision, the Agency concluded that the settlement agreement had not been breached.

Complainant states on appeal that she was informed that management had scheduled a meeting
(under the settlement agreement) for April 29, 2011. Complainant asserts that because the
meeting was beyond the 30-day time limit in the agreement, she did not attend the meeting. In
response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency states that the meeting that Complainant agreed
to in order to resolve her complaint did not occur during the 30 days from the signing of
0120113710

2
Complainant’s settlement agreement. However, the Agency states that the meeting was
scheduled within days of Complainant’s notification to the Agency of non-compliance. The
Agency argues that Complainant chose not to participate in the meeting and instead elected to
pursue the instant breach claim.

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).

The record reveals that on April 26, 2011, a letter was hand delivered to Complainant. The
letter stated that there was a meeting scheduled for April 29, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. at the
Charleston Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC). The Plant Manager and the Manager
of Human Resources were scheduled to be in attendance at the meeting with Complainant. On
April 29, 2011, Complainant failed to report for the meeting at 2:00 pm. The Plant Manager
telephoned a Supervisor on the workroom floor to see if Complainant was available. The
Supervisor informed the Plant Manager that Complainant told him that she was not going to
meet with the Plant Manager and the Manager of Human Resources because their time was up
and she was going to file a formal complaint.

The Commission finds that the Agency substantially complied with the agreement by
scheduling the required meeting a little over two weeks after the 30-day time limit set forth in
the agreement. There is no indication that the 30-day time limit was not met in bad faith or
that the little over two week delay undermined the intent of the agreement. Complainant chose
not to attend the meeting. Previous Commission decisions have indicated that failure to satisfy
a time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial
compliance, especially when all required actions were subsequently completed. See Lazarete
v. Department of Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274. As there is no evidence of bad faith
in the record, we find that the Agency has substantially complied with the agreement.

0120113710

3
CONCLUSION

The Agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

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), 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.
0120113710

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

January 30, 2013
Date