01972499
11-16-1999
Laurie E. Meyer, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Laurie E. Meyer, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01972499
) Agency No. 4-H-1631-93
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
_________________________________)
DECISION
Appellant filed the instant appeal from the agency's December 31,
1996 decision finding that the agency did not breach the settlement
agreement entered into by the parties on January 10, 1994. The settlement
agreement provided:
The Postal Service acknowledges the complainant has an accepted
job related condition by OWCP. The Postal Service will honor her
physician's recommendations to work in the safest manner possible.<1>
The complainant has the right to continue to sign the overtime desired
list and work overtime in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of
the National Agreement. The complainant will be compensated overtime pay
for the period of September 18, 1992 thru January 23, 1993 in accordance
with the provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual.
In its decision, the agency found that appellant had alleged that the
agency breached the agreement by requiring her to back her vehicle
directly adjacent to grass; which would compel her to work out of the
grass or in the grass; which could be harmful to her; and which violated
her physician's guidelines. The agency determined that: (1) appellant
had been instructed to back into parking spaces when she was driving a
van which has a side door; (2) the instructions that carriers back into
parking spaces was revised for appellant "by enforcing these instructions
only when she drives a van;"<2> and (3) the instructions of appellant's
physician simply stated that appellant must carry an anti-allergy kit
and not to work over dirty or grassy areas. The agency concluded that
it had not breached the agreement.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be
binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency
has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the
complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance
"within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of
the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant
may request that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically
implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated for further
processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant 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
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is
a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the
parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing
Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,
1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and
unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
The Commission notes that appellant has not challenged the agency's
framing of the breach allegation. Moreover, appellant has not challenged
the agency's assertion that she was only required to back into a parking
space when using a van with a side door. Appellant has provided a copy
of a letter dated June 20, 1996, from a physician stating that appellant
should not "back up her vehicle in a grassy area and work from it because
of the increased risk of being stung by bees . . ." Appellant has not
shown that the agency violated her physician's recommendations to work
in the �safest manner possible� pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement. The circumstances of appellant's work as described by the
agency, and not contested on appeal by appellant, are different than the
circumstances described by the physician in the June 20, 1996 letter.
The Commission finds that appellant has failed to show that the agency
breached the settlement agreement. The Commission notes that appellant
filed an EEO complaint on the same matter which was considered in Meyer
v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01972553 (April 6, 1998).
The agency's decision finding that the agency did not breach the
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
November 16, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
1 A review of the record reflects that appellant's physician determined
that appellant suffers from an allergy to bee stings that could be
�life threatening.�
2 The record reflects that the agency has a policy that agency carriers
are instructed to back into parking spaces for safety reasons, after
numerous accidents. The agency noted that if a van has a side door,
�it does not matter if [appellant] backs into a spot because any grassy
area would not affect her while working out of the side of [the] van.�