0120132246
09-19-2013
Jing H. Kuang, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Jing H. Kuang,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120132246
Agency No. 4B100008412
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated April 19, 2013, 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
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Clerk at the Agency's Kingsbridge Station facility in Bronx, New York. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On July 18, 2012, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The parties mutually agree that no later than 7/25/2012, [Complainant] and [Complainant's representative] will provide duplicate copies to [named individuals] of all documents supporting the allegation that [Complainant] has been by-passed for overtime opportunities/hours. Such submission shall be limited to only those dates and hours submitted in [Complainant's] grievances and must include specific dates, times and number of hours lost. [Complainant] will be provided with a written response from management to his request for financial compensation of lost overtime hours no later than 9/19/2012 which will be hand delivered to him in front of a union representative. If it is determined that [Complainant] is entitled to compensation for lost overtime hours due to being by-passed than a pay adjustment will be made and submitted to payroll for a pay adjustment. [Complainant] acknowledges that management has no control over the timing of the pay adjustment. The parties further stipulate and agree that, if in the interim, a decision is rendered in the grievance process that EEO will not interfere or overturn such decision.
By letter to the Agency dated March 8, 2013, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms.1 Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to pay him for 100 hours of overtime for which he had previously been by-passed. Complainant further alleged that the Agency's decision regarding his entitlement to overtime was without merit.
In its April 19, 2013 FAD, the Agency concluded that it had complied with the July 18, 2012 agreement entered into by the parties. The Agency determined that the Agreement obligated the Agency to provide a response to Complainant's allegation that he had been bypassed for overtime. The Agency further indicated that the Agreement only provided that Complainant would be paid for overtime if it was determined that he had previously been overlooked for overtime opportunities.
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).
In the instant case, Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency breached the settlement agreement as alleged. According to the July 18, 2012 agreement between the parties, the Agency was obligated only to provide Complainant with a response to his claim that he had been denied opportunities to work overtime after Complainant provided copies of documentation in support of his allegation. The agreement required the Agency to pay Complainant for overtime only if it was determined that he had in fact been by-passed with respect to overtime. If Complainant believed that he was entitled to a payment of overtime, he should have negotiated specifically for language to that effect to be made part of the agreement. The Agency has submitted evidence in support of its determination that Complainant was provided with a response to his claims regarding overtime in accordance with the agreement. The settlement agreement did not obligate the Agency to perform as Complainant has alleged in his allegation of breach. The Complainant has failed to provide evidence establishing that the Agency breached the specific provision of the settlement agreement between the parties as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, we find that the Agency's determination that it complied with the July 18, 2012 settlement agreement was proper. The Agency's decision in that regard is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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), at 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
September 19, 2013
__________________
Date
1 The record indicates that Complainant's breach allegation was included among other issues raised by Complainant in Agency No. 4B-100-0024-13. However, the Agency determined that Complainant's allegation regarding the denial of overtime concerned an agreement between the parties in settlement of Agency Case No. 4B-100-0084-12.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120132246
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120132246