01a02438
06-16-2000
Eunice Grant, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eunice Grant v. United States Postal Service
01A02438
June 16, 2000
Eunice Grant, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A02438
) Agency No. 4A 0700155-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated December 28, 1999, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the May 7, 1999 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
If any issues arise between craft and management around work relations
or environment [complainant] will go first to [her supervisor] and if
issue is not resolved will go to next higher official. The same for
[complainant's supervisor] to [complainant].
[Complainant's supervisor] will call a weekly general service talk and
open discussion for all clerks.
What went on in this meeting will not be on the floor tomorrow.
There will be no retaliation by either [complainant] or [complainant's
supervisor] as a result of this meeting.
Both agree to respect each other.
By letter to the agency dated October 28, 1999, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency implement the its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged
that her supervisor "breached the terms of the settlement agreement and
has conducted himself towards [her] in an inappropriate manner...."
In addition, complainant completed an "Information for Precomplaint
Counseling" form, which she labeled "Application to Reopen Case
No. 4A-0700155-99". Therein, complainant alleged that her supervisor
failed to have weekly general service talks; retaliated against her by
denying her overtime; disclosed the terms of the settlement agreement;
and purposely aggravated her medical condition.
In its December 28, 1999 decision, the agency concluded that the
settlement agreement was not breached. Relying on an interview with
the Postmaster, the agency determined that complainant never contacted
her supervisor or the Postmaster regarding any problems; and that the
Supervisor gave, but did not document, weekly talks.
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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
v. USPS, 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).
In the instant case, we find that the agency properly concluded that it
did not breach the settlement agreement. We note that among complainant's
generalized assertions that her supervisor violated the agreement, she
contends that he failed to hold weekly meetings. The only evidence
in the record regarding this claim, however, is an affidavit by the
Postmaster attesting that the supervisor did hold weekly meetings,
although undocumented. The settlement agreement language does not
require that the meetings be documented. Moreover, we note that while
complainant argues that every postal facility where she has worked
requires every employee who attends a general weekly service meeting to
sign an attendance sheet, the settlement agreement does not provide an
affirmative agency obligation for her supervisor to do so.
With respect to complainant's claim that her supervisor disclosed
the terms of the agreement, we find no supporting evidence in the
record. We note that in letters from complainant's attorney, issued
after the agency's decision, it is indicated that complainant was
"under the impression that [complainant's supervisor] was going to be
detailed out of the South Plainfield Postal facility until such time as
complainant's current complaint [regarding the alleged breach] had been
fully and finally adjudicated." Complainant's attorney contends that the
supervisor's presence aggravates complainant's medical condition. We find
this claim to be misplaced, as the language of the settlement agreement
does not require that complainant's supervisor be detailed or relocated.
All that is required of complainant's supervisor is weekly meetings and
communication with complainant regarding any issued that arise.
Finally, we find that the claim regarding the alleged denial of overtime
concerns a subsequent act and thus constitutes a new allegation of
discrimination. Complainant is advised that she should promptly contact an
EEO Counselor if she wishes to pursue this claim through the EEO process.
Accordingly, we find that the agency's decision finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement was proper and is
hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
June 16, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.