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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 11, 2015

0120120840 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 11, 2015)

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
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120120840

Agency No. 1J-483-0056-08

DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the
Agency dated November 1, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement into which the parties entered.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Maintenance
Operations Support Clerk (MOSC) at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center facility
in Detroit, Michigan. Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO
complaint process. On September 11, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent
part, that:

(1) Management will ensure that employee will be free of harassment in the
performance of her duties.
(2) Management ensures that employee will work all functions of her job.

By letter to the Agency, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement
agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically,
0120120840

2
Complainant alleged that management failed to assign her all the duties of her position and that
she has been unfairly disciplined.1

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).
Here, we find that the Agency has established that it is in substantial compliance with the terms
of the settlement agreement. The Manager, Maintenance Operations Support (M1) stated that
she assigns Complainant work as necessary, and that Complainant was performing all the
duties of her position. M1 also stated that the duties Complainant alleges she was not assigned
were not part of Complainant’s position description and were only assigned to MOSC with
grade levels higher than Complainant. With respect to Complainant’s contention that she is
being unfairly disciplined, M1 states that Complainant is disruptive and fails to perform her
assigned tasks which results in her being given pre-disciplinary interviews. We note that
nothing in the settlement agreement immunizes Complainant from appropriate discipline. We
find that Complainant did not present any persuasive arguments or evidence that the settlement
agreement was breached.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s finding of no breach of the September 11, 2008 settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.

1 To the extent that Complainant is alleging that she has been subjected to additional instances
of harassment, we remind Complainant that if she wishes to pursue such claims she should
raise those claims with an EEO Counselor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1).

0120120840

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.

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
0120120840

4
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
February 11, 2015