0120172079
01-31-2018
Dona A,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dona A,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172079
Agency No. 4C-440-0174-16
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 11, 2017, 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
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Customer Service Supervisor at the Agency's Twinsburg Post Office in Twinsburg, Ohio.
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August 30, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Counselee will be given an opportunity, within six months from the date of this agreement to act as a Manager, Customer Service, for a minimum of 90 days. The date the detail commences will be determined by the Manager and the Complainant's Manager of Post Office Operations.
By letter to the Agency dated March 1, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to take action within the six-month time frame indicated in the settlement agreement.
The matter was assigned to an EEO Official who investigated the claim of breach on April 12, 2017. During the investigation, it was learned that Complainant was offered an Acting Manager detail for 90 days in the South Euclid facility which was effective April 29, 2017. In its May 11, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that it has cured the breach of the August 30, 2016 settlement agreement.
This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant provided a time line of events from the signing of the settlement agreement. She indicated that she was placed in the Acting Manager position on May 1, 2017. However, she asserted that the Manager named in the settlement agreement was not the person who offered her the detail as he was supposed to do so pursuant to the agreement. Complainant also noted that she was not offered the position within the six-month time frame stated in the settlement agreement. She claimed that the Manager was trying to circumvent the settlement agreement signed by both parties. The Agency requested that the Commission affirm its determination finding no breach of the settlement agreement.
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).
Failure to satisfy a time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent our finding that an agency has substantially complied with its terms, especially when it subsequently has completed all required actions. See Lazarte v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (Apr. 25, 1996); Sortino v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05950721 (Nov. 21, 1996), citing Baron v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05930277 (Sep. 30, 1993) (two-weeks delay in transfer of official letter of regret rather than letter of apology found to be substantial compliance); Centore v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Appeal No. 01A04637 (Nov. 2, 2000) (a few days after sixty-day time period for compliance not a material breach of settlement agreement).
In the instant case, the parties agreed that the Agency would provide Complainant with a detail within six months of signing the settlement agreement. However, we find that the Agency substantially complied with all of its obligations stated in the settlement agreement at issue. Complainant has not disputed that the Agency has provided her with the Acting Manager detail starting April 24, 2017, which would end January 7, 2018. The Agency provided a copy of Complainant's assignment order to support the claim that it has complied with the settlement agreement. Therefore, to the extent that the Agency breached the settlement agreement by not provided Complainant with a detail, any such breach was subsequently cured.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
January 31, 2018
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120172079
2
0120172079