0120100626
05-18-2011
Lashunda Montgomery, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.
Lashunda Montgomery,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100626
Agency No. 4G-752-0290-06
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency properly determined
that it did not breach a settlement agreement that the parties entered
into resolving Complainant’s complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504.
The Agency’s determination not to reinstate Complainant’s complaint
is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
resolving the complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent
part, that:
2. (a) The Agency agreed to hire Complainant into a Rural
Carrier Associate position in the Grand Prairie Post Office.
(b) Complainant understands that this appointment is contingent upon
her submission of a completed application and her clearing the medical
unit. She will not have to interview for the position. Once hired,
Complainant will be subject to all of the regular requirements of the
position.
(c) Complainant’s start date will be within 30 days following the
successful completion of her application, drug screening and clearing
of her medical assessment.
(d) If Complainant successfully completes the regular probationary
period for a Rural Carrier Associate, her official seniority date will
be April 29, 2006.
Thereafter, Complainant claimed that the Agency did not comply with
the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant indicates that
she was subjected to retaliation concerning mistakes on her paycheck,
her work hours, and working conditions after the settlement agreement.
The Agency responds that it did not breach the 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 response to Complainant’s claim, the Agency states that it did not
breach any items under the settlement agreement at issue. Specifically,
the Agency submits evidence indicating that Complainant was hired into
a Rural Carrier Associate position with her seniority date of April 29,
2006, in accordance with the settlement agreement. Complainant does not
dispute this. To the extent that Complainant is alleging that subsequent
acts of discrimination violated the settlement agreement, she should
contact an EEO Counselor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 so that her
claims of discrimination may be processed as a separate complaint of
discrimination pursuant to §1614.106. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(c).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s decision finding no settlement breach 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), 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
5/18/11
__________________
Date
2
0120100626
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120100626