0120162218
01-24-2017
Madeleine C,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Madeleine C,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162218
Agency No. 4G700013906
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 3, 2016, 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
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On October 19, 2006, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) Management will issue a new clerk job offer with Saturday and Sunday off days and no window duties, with current saved salary.
The agreement also informed Complainant that any alleged breach arising out of the implementation of or compliance with the settlement agreement had to be reported to the Agency within 30 days of the alleged breach.
Complainant sought EEO counseling on May 13, 2016, alleging that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that although the Agency initially complied with the job offer, she was taken out of the clerk job in 2012 and placed in the carrier craft.2
In its June 3, 2016 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency first found that Complainant's breach claims were untimely raised. It also found that the agreement did not promise that Complainant would hold the agreed upon clerk position ad infinitum.
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, we agree with the Agency that Complainant untimely raised her breach claims. Complainant was transferred from the clerk position in 2012. While Complainant states on appeal that she initially spoke to the Labor Relations Department when she was transferred, she does not indicate why she did not follow the instructions in the settlement agreement in alleging a breach.
Additionally, as recognized by the Agency, the Commission has held that where an individual bargains for a position without any specific terms as to the length of service, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of the parties to include employment in that exact position ad infinitum. See Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997); Papac v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05910808 (Dec. 12, 1991); see also Parker v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Request No. 05910576 (Aug. 30, 1991). In addition, the Commission has held that there is no breach of a settlement agreement "where an individual has been assigned to a position pursuant to a settlement agreement, has held the position for a period of time, and then is excised out of the position because of agency downsizing that was not anticipated at the time of the agreement." Gish v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01950923 (Aug. 14, 1995). Here, Complainant was in the clerk position for six years, and nearly 10 years later is complaining when she was moved out of it in 2012. We find that under the agreement executed there was no expectation that she would hold the position forever.
The Agency's determination that it was not in breach of the agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
January 24, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 The record indicates that on May 3, 2016, Complainant received a "return to craft" letter which impacted those employees reassigned to different crafts. On May 11, 2016, Complainant was assigned to a clerk position.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120162218
2
0120162218