Garland D. Lewis, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 12, 2011
0120102284 (E.E.O.C. May. 12, 2011)

0120102284

05-12-2011

Garland D. Lewis, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.




Garland D. Lewis,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Western Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120102284

Agency No. 4E-800-0570-03

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a letter of

determination by the Agency dated December 30, 2009, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of an August 28, 2003 settlement agreement.

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. §�

�1614.405.

The August 28, 2003 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,

that:

C. No communication will occur between the parties [Complainant and

his supervisor, hereinafter referred to as “S1”] unless absolutely

necessary. If necessary, each party will have a witness of their choosing

for that communication to occur.1

By letter to the Agency dated August 30, 2009, Complainant alleged

breach of provision C. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on August

5 and 7, 2009, the Station Manager (SM) along with S1 approached him

at the service window asking him if he would like to work overtime.

Complainant stated that he was not given an opportunity to have a witness

present, which was a violation of the instant settlement agreement.

Complainant further alleged that on October 19, 2009, SM and S1 asked

him if he would work two hours of overtime. Complainant again stated

that he was not given an opportunity to have a witness present which

was a violation of the agreement.

In its December 30, 2009 letter of determination, the Agency found no

breach of provision C. The Agency found that S1 stated that on August 5

and 7, 2009, SM asked her to witness her communication with Complainant

when SM asked Complainant if he would like to work overtime. S1 further

stated that in regard to the October 19, 2009 incident, management of

the Agency’s downtown office deemed it necessary to ask Complainant

to work overtime. S1 stated that Complainant never acknowledged the

request to work overtime, and he did not stay on overtime. Finally,

S1 stated that her communication with Complainant was work-related and

necessary due to operation needs.

The record contains a copy of S1’s affidavit dated November 4, 2009.

Therein, S1 stated that on August 5 and 7, 2009, SM “asked me to witness

her communication with [Complainant]. [Complainant] has filed an EEO on

[SM] and she felt it was necessary to have a witness.” S1 stated that

in regard to the October 19, 2009 incident, “it was deemed necessary

by the managerial staff at the downtown station to call overtime on

[Complainant]. Redress states that if necessary I am able to communicate

with this employee. At the point that I addressed [Complainant], the

Denver Downtown Station was in dire need with box section failure…”

S1 stated that on the same day, two Distribution Clerks were on sick

leave and one Window Clerk was on annual leave. S1 further stated that

other volunteers “were notified that it was mandatory to stay and

work overtime. The time of the request for this overtime volunteer to

stay was 11:00 AM, per the APWU contract a volunteer must be notified

one hour prior to ending tour. [Complainant’s] hours are 4:00-12:30,

the request was made on the workroom floor with relay driver’s,

clerks, and [SM] as witnesses. Based on the urgency of the situation,

it was necessary to request this employee stay. [Complainant] never

acknowledged the request, nor did he stay.”

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant argues that [Manger of Downtown Station (M1)]

and [S1] “violated and breached this same order in which this agency

determine that because [M1] apologized then it was okay. Well, it’s

not okay to continue to allow management to breach this settlement

agreement.”

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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).

In the instant case, we find that the Agency complied with provision C.

Specifically, we note that in provision C, the parties agreed that there

would be no communication between the Agency and Complainant unless

it was absolutely necessary; and if necessary, each party will have a

witness of their choosing for that communication to occur. We note that

according to S1, she was asked by SM to witness her conversation with

Complainant on August 5 and 7, 2009 because management needed Complainant

to work overtime. We further note that S1 stated that on October 19,

2009, she was instructed to ask Complainant to work overtime due to

operation needs. We find that given the time restraint and operation

needs, there was insufficient time for Complainant to have a witness

present during his conversation with SM and S1. Therefore, we find that

the Agency substantially complied with provision C of the agreement.

Accordingly, the Agency’s finding of no breach of provisions C of the

December 30, 2009 settlement agreement 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

May 12, 2011

__________________

Date

1 The record reflects that the settlement agreement also provides

for Complainant and S1 to have no physical contact; and management

will follow all rules and regulations regarding overtime assignments.

These provisions are not at issue in the instant appeal.

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

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

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

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

2

0120102284

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120102284

5

0120102284