01a45875
12-13-2005
Elizabeth Laszlo, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Elizabeth Laszlo v. United States Postal Service
01A45875
December 13, 2005
.
Elizabeth Laszlo,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A45875
Agency No. 4A-070-0227-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 29, 2004, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the October 1, 2002 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.
In this appeal, complainant is alleging a breach of one of the five
stipulations contained in the settlement agreement in this matter.
At issue is the provision stipulating that:
Management will ensure that complainant will be given 18 make-up hours
during calendar year 2002.
By letter to the agency dated January 3, 2003, complainant argued,
inter alia, that during the period in question, she received less
overtime than two specific employees assigned to her postal facility.
Complainant maintained that she should have received more overtime than
at least one other employee at her assigned station.
In its July 29, 2004 FAD, the agency concluded that a review of its
official timekeeping records reveals that complainant did work and was
compensated for a total of 126.02 hours of overtime during the period,
October 2, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Further, the agency noted
that documentation provided by the management officials responsible for
administering daily overtime at the facility shows that during the period
of October 14, 2002 through November 20, 2002, complainant's 18 hours of
overtime was satisfied. The agency asserted that �there is nothing in
the [settlement] agreement regarding equalization of overtime or that
she be provided 18 more hours than another employee. Additionally,
there was no provision of how the overtime would be administered.�
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. Department of Defense,
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. Department 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. United States Postal
Service, 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).
The burden is on the party alleging breach to establish that a breach
has occurred. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission
finds that complainant has not shown that the agency has breached the
settlement agreement at issue. Recognizing that complainant details
her own account in several letters to the agency, the Commission is not
swayed in finding that the agency has breached the settlement agreement at
issue in this matter. Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding
no settlement breach is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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 13, 2005
__________________
Date