01985101
03-01-2000
Helen Chambers, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Helen Chambers v. United States Postal Service
01985101
March 1, 2000
Helen Chambers, )
Complainant, )
v. ) Appeal No. 01985101
) Agency No. 1-Q-1101-90
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed the agency's final decision not to reinstate
her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination that the parties
had settled.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-37,660 (1999) (to
be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a),
� 1614.405, and � 1614.504).
The record indicates that complainant filed a formal complaint dated
May 29, 1990. On January 2, 1992, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which provided, in pertinent part, that:
Complainant would be placed into the EAS Level 23, Director of City
Operations position non-competitively at the maximum level of the pay
scale within 18 months of the date of this settlement.
By letter dated April 21, 1998, complainant alleged that the agency
breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant indicated
that she was not presently paid at the highest salary of level 23,
and her salary had not been correct since January 1993.
On May 19, 1998, the agency issued a final decision finding no settlement
breach. Specifically, the agency stated that its records indicated that
complainant was placed in the position of Director of City Operations,
EAS-23 effective March 21, 1992, at the maximum level of the pay scale,
and for the years of 1992 through 1995, she was paid at the maximum level.
The agency indicated that thereafter, on February 3, 1996, its salary
structure or range was changed based on each employee's merit evaluation.
The agency noted that complainant's salary, thus, was increased based
on her evaluations, i.e., her ratings of "Met Objectives/Expectations"
for 1996, 1997, and 1998.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504 provides that if the complainant
believes that the agency failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, the complainant should notify the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement
agreement, within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that
the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,
alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing
from the point processing ceased.
The agency shall resolve the matter and respond to the complainant,
in writing. If the agency has not responded to the complainant, in
writing, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt
to resolve the matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for
a determination as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of
the settlement agreement or final decision.
The Commission has held that settlement agreements are contracts between
the complainant and the agency and it is the intent of the parties
as expressed in the contract, and not some unexpressed intention, that
controls the contract's construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In addition, the
Commission generally follows the rule that if a 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 v. Building Engineering Services,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). The Commission has followed this rule
when interpreting settlement agreements. The Commission's policy in
this regard is based on the premise that the face of the agreement best
reflects the understanding of the parties.
Upon review, we find that the agency did not breach the January 21,
1992 settlement agreement. The record reveals that complainant was
placed into the EAS Level 23, Director of City Operations position at
the maximum level of the pay scale effective March 21, 1992, pursuant
to the settlement agreement. Furthermore, the record indicates that
complainant was paid at the maximum pay level from 1992 through 1995, and
her salary was changed/increased based on her merit evaluation since 1996.
Although complainant alleged that she was not paid at the maximum pay
level in 1998, we find that the settlement agreement at issue did not
provide that she would be paid at the maximum pay level indefinitely.
The Commission has held that if a settlement agreement does not include
specific duration terms for the employment relationship which could
have been agreed upon, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable
intentions of the parties as binding the agency to the terms thereof
forever. See Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05910576
(August 30, 1991). Upon review, we find that complainant was paid at
the maximum in of the pay scale for an EAS Level 23 position pursuant
to the settlement agreement. Complainant's salary level was changed
four years after the settlement based on a change in the agency's
salary structure, which change did not constitute a settlement breach.
Based on the foregoing, the agency's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
March 1, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant
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.