0120110197
10-26-2011
Leonila Reyes, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.
Leonila Reyes,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120110197
Agency No. 1G754003010
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her settlement
agreement dated March 29, 2010.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the events at issue, Complainant was employed as a
Clerk, PS-06, at an Agency facility in Texas. Believing that the Agency
subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency
EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On March 29, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] was assigned to the standby room in error. She has
been returned to her front desk assignment and will remain there.
Complainant filed her instant appeal on October 1, 2010, asserting the
Agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant
alleged that she was moved from her front desk assignment and replaced
with a disabled male employee. Complainant sought the enforcement of
the terms of the settlement agreement.
The Agency, in response to the appeal, states it was never informed of
the breach. The Agency submitted an unreadable copy of an affidavit which
purports to be from the Manager of Distribution Operations. The Agency
represents that the statement indicates that Complainant participated in
the Agency’s National Reassessment Process and it was determined that
Complainant should be reassigned to a bid position in automation as the
work was within her restrictions. The Agency argued in its statement
in response to the appeal that the settlement agreement did not award
Complainant the front desk position ad infinitum, and that there were
no specific terms in the agreement about the length of the service in
the position. In the interest of expediting the adjudication of this
matter, the Commission views the Agency’s statement on appeal as its
final Agency decision.
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).
As an initial matter, the Commission notes Complainant erred when
she filed her initial claim of breach of the settlement agreement
directly with the Commission rather than first informing the Agency of
the alleged breach in accordance with the procedures in 29 C.F.R. §
1614.504. However, as already noted, because the Agency has addressed
Complainant’s breach allegations on appeal, the Commission, in the
interest of judicial economy and expediency, will view it response as
its decision and address the matter herein.
In the instant case, the agreement was signed on March 29, 2010 and
only a few months later Complainant’s position was changed. This is
hardly a case where the agreement has been continuing ad infinitum as
asserted by the Agency. Moreover, the Commission is not convinced that
the Agency did not know that the National Reassessment Process (NRP)
was being carried out at the time it entered into the agreement which
might impact on Complainant’s assignment. In fact, it is likely that
Complainant’s original complaint that she was placed in the standby
room was the result of the NRP. Numerous cases have appeared before
the Commission regarding the nationwide NRP process. In particular,
McConnell v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080054 (January 14, 2010),
involves a class action suit concerning the NRP. Thus, the Commission
finds that it is more likely than not that the Agency was fully aware
that the NRP was occurring at the time it agreed, under the terms of the
settlement agreement, to return Complainant to the front desk assignment.
It is highly unlikely that Complainant would have agreed to withdraw
her pending EEO complaint, if she had known that the Agency was only
agreeing to return her the front desk assignment for a brief period
until the she was processed through the NRP.
As such, the Commission finds that the Agency breached the settlement
agreement when it moved Complainant from her front desk assignment.
The Agency shall comply with the order as set forth below.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) days of the date this decision becomes final, the
Agency shall return Complainant to her Front Desk assignment.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the
Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File A Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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.
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
October 26, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120110197
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120110197