Dan E. Trowbridge, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 20, 2011
0120113408 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2011)

0120113408

12-20-2011

Dan E. Trowbridge, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.




Dan E. Trowbridge,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Western Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120113408

Agency No. 4E-800-0151-07

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

Agency determination (FAD) dated July 6, 2011, 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

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant

worked as a Carrier at the Agency’s Laramie Wyoming Post Office in

Laramie, Wyoming. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful

discrimination, Complainant filed an EEO complaint. On November 29,

2010, he and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve

the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

1. The Colorado/Wyoming District Manager, Human Resources will send a

letter to the Postmaster of Laramie, Wyoming, indicating that management

must comply with Mr. Trowbridge’s medical restrictions limiting him

to working eight hours per day and forty hours per week, and

2. Laramie, Wyoming management staff will be required to take training

regarding reasonable accommodation.

The record suggests that Complainant’s schedule is from 7:30 AM to 4:00

PM. By letter to the Agency dated May 26, 2011, Complainant contended

that the Agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, he

alleged that while on his route on April 20, 2011, he advised the Station

Manager and Postmaster that he would not make it back to the office by

4 PM. He indicated that he got back to the office less than a minute

before 4 PM, but after doing his office work did not clock out for the

day until approximately 4:02 PM.1 Complainant stated that he was being

observed by the Carrier Supervisor, who did not stop him from working.

According to the FAD, Complainant also advised the EEO office that

that he did not believe management took the training agreed to in the

settlement agreement.

In its July 6, 2011 FAD, the Agency concluded that it complied with

the settlement agreement. It recounted that the Postmaster stated all

management staff at Laramie took the reasonable accommodation training

as agreed. The record contains computerized training logs reflecting

that by November 24, 2010, the Laramie Post Office Station Manager and

Postmaster completed six hours training titled Reasonable Accommodation

in the Workplace. According to the FAD, the Postmaster instructed

Complainant and the Carrier Supervisor not to clean Complainant’s

vehicle and clock out immediately, but Complainant ended up doing a

couple extra things in the office and failed to look at the clock to

get off in time.

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).

On appeal, Complainant writes that on April 21, 2011, the Postmaster

instructed him and the Carrier Supervisor not to clean Complainant’s

vehicle and to get off the clock, not on April 20, 2011. Complainant

writes that he worked more than eight hours on April 20, 2011. He clocked

out on April 21, 2011, at 4 PM.

In opposition to the appeal, the Agency argues that Complainant worked

approximately two minutes beyond his eight hour day, was not directed

to do so, and this isolated incident does not constitute a breach.

On appeal, Complainant no longer contends that the Agency breached the

training portion of the settlement agreement, and we find compliance

with this provision.

We find that the Agency did not breach term 1 of the settlement

agreement, as numbered above. As argued by the Agency, Complainant worked

approximately two minutes beyond his eight hour day and was not directed

to do so. Complainant does not contest this was an isolated incident.

Given these circumstances, we find it would be inequitable to find

a breach.

The FAD 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.

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

December 20, 2011

__________________

Date

1 To be more precise, Complainant referred to his clock rings that day.

The clock ring system has 100 segments per hour. Complainant clocked

back into the office at 15:99, and clocked out for the day at 16:04.

We have converted these rings to their approximate civilian equivalents.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120113408

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120113408