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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 7, 2013

0120121436 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 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
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120121436

Agency No. 4F-900-0202-11

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated
December 21, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement on September 15, 2011,
which provided, in pertinent part, that:

Management will reduce the Notice of Removal dated June 30, 2011[,] that was issued
to [Complainant,] hereinafter referred to as the Counselee, to a time served suspension
and return him to his previous position as soon as reasonably possible, but no longer
than 10 days from the date of this agreement.

On October 18, 2011, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement
agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency did not to return him to work
until September 22, 2011, which he stated was beyond the 10-day stipulation of September 1,
2011, based on the agreement being signed on August 22, 2011.

In its December 21, 2011 decision, the Agency concluded that the settlement agreement had
not been breached. The Agency noted that the settlement agreement was signed by
Complainant on August 22, 2011; however, it was not signed by the Agency until September
15, 2011. The Agency noted that in order to become a valid agreement, at least two parties
0120121436

2
have to sign the agreement. The Agency stated that it did not sign the agreement until
September 15, 2011, and it argued that was the date the agreement became final. The Agency
explained that Complainant was returned to work six days after the agreement became final and
thus, it concluded it did not breach the settlement agreement.

On appeal, Complainant reiterates his claim that the settlement agreement was effective August
22, 2011, and he argues he was not returned to his previous position as stated in the agreement
until September 22, 2011. Complainant requests that the settlement agreement remain in full
force; however, he requests compensation for the breach.

Additionally, Complainant claims that the Postmaster and the Manager of Labor Relations
intentionally delayed signing the settlement agreement as retaliation for a complaint he initiated
on July 29, 2011, under Agency No. PRE-028057-2011. Complainant also claims that the
EEO Specialist influenced him into signing the agreement and told him, “[Complainant], you
need to sign this agreement because at other post offices you would probably have been fired
with no agreement.” Complainant also states that the EEO Specialist called him during the 10-
day waiting period and told him, “[Complainant,] every effort is being made to get this
agreement signed by above mentioned Postal Officials.”

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).

Complainant does not raise any challenges under the Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act.
Furthermore, Complainant clearly states on appeal that he wants the agreement enforced, but
additional compensation due to the alleged breach. Thus, there is no need to look at whether
the agreement was voluntarily entered into since Complainant seeks enforcement of the
agreement. We note, however, that we find no persuasive evidence Complainant was under
duress when he signed the agreement. Moreover, with regard to the delay between
Complainant signing the agreement and the signature by the Manager of Labor Relations, we
0120121436

3
find there is no evidence that the Agency engaged in bad faith as a result of this purported
delay.

In the present case, Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the terms of the
September 15, 2011 settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the Agency was to reduce
the Notice of Removal dated June 30, 2011, that was issued to Complainant, to a time served
suspension and return him to his previous position as soon as possible, but no longer than 10
days from the date of this agreement. Complainant contended the agreement was breached
since he was not returned to his prior position until September 22, 2011. However, we find
the settlement agreement was not fully executed until September 15, 2011, when the Manager
of Labor Relations, the representative for the Agency signed it. As Complainant was returned
to his prior position within 10 days of execution of the agreement, we find Complainant failed
to show the Agency breached the agreement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s decision 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), 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
0120121436

4
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

August 7, 2013
Date