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