Marilyn W.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 18, 2019

2019004748 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 18, 2019)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Marilyn W.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 2019004748

Agency No. 1G-754-0007-19

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated May 24, 2019, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a February 15, 2019 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Postal Service Employee (PSE) Mail
Processing Clerk at the Agency’s North Texas Processing and Distribution Center (PD&C) facility
in Coppell, Texas.

Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an
EEO Counselor to initiate the discrimination complaint process. On February 15, 2019,
Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. We note
that prior to the execution of the agreement, a spill accident at the Agency facility where
Complainant is employed resulted the confiscation of employee shoes as they all departed the
building, as a safety precaution.

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 2019004748

The settlement agreement contained, in pertinent part, the following provision:

[Complainant] agrees to resign after Management agrees to follow-up regarding the
voucher for [Complainant’s] shoes and validate if [Complainant] received pay for
three hours annual leave. All of this will be done by 2-15-19 (issuance of monies
owed and resignation effective that date).

By letter to the Agency dated February 17, 2019, Complainant alleged breach and requested that
the Agency implement the terms of the subject agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that
the Agency denied just compensate to her for shoes it confiscated following a mercury spill
accident at the PD&C, referenced above.

In its May 24, 2019 final decision, the Agency found no breach. Regarding compensation for
Complainant’s confiscated shoes, the Agency stated that Complainant had originally submitted a
voucher for $134.00. However, Complainant then resubmitted the voucher demanding one million
dollars for those same shoes. The Agency stated it declined to pay Complainant one million dollars
because she could not validate the shoes exposed to mercury were worth that amount. The Agency
acknowledged Complainant assertion that the shoes had been a gift with priceless sentimental
value. However, Agency responded that sentimental value was not legally compensable. The
Agency then advised Complainant to resubmit the voucher with evidence to prove the shoes’ value
such as pictures or a description in terms of date obtained, condition, brand, or style.

On appeal, Complainant contended the Agency had negotiated the settlement agreement in bad
faith and that contemporaneous recordings would corroborate her accusation. Specifically,
Complainant claimed that during negotiations, a manager had told her she would be paid the
amount claimed for the shoes. Complainant reasoned that she was entitled to one million dollars
because the Agency had wrongfully caused her to be exposed to mercury while forcing her to work
overtime. Complainant maintained the Agency violated her Constitutional rights when it
confiscated her shoes but did pay the one million dollars in compensation claimed on the voucher
she submitted. According to Complainant, because the Agency had breached their agreement by
not paying monies it owed her, she challenged her resignation and refused to sign and submit it.
Finally, Complainant alleged her union had conspired with the Agency in failing to represent her.

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 the Agency and Complainant. The Commission has held a settlement agreement is a contract
between these parties to which we apply ordinary rules of contract interpretation. Herrington v.
Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request No. 05960032 (Dec. 9, 1996). The Commission has further held
the parties’ intent, as expressed in the settlement agreement, controls its construction, rather than
unwritten intentions. Eggleston v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (Aug.
23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties regarding terms of a settlement agreement,
EEOC relies on the plain meaning rule.
3 2019004748

Hyon O v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec 2, 1991). This rule states if a
settlement agreement appears plain and unambiguous, then we must determine its meaning from
within the document without consideration of any extrinsic evidence. See Montgomery Elevator
Co. v. Building Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

Regarding Complainant’s challenges related to management statements made during settlement
negotiations, EEOC has consistently held that such statements are not justiciable. This
Commission considers settlement negotiations confidential and privileged, in the interest of
facilitating a candid interchange to settle disputes informally. Blake H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120162571 (Oct. 20, 2016).

The Agency has met its obligations under the settlement. An Agency promise to “follow-up” on
Complainant’s voucher cannot be construed as promising to pay any amount Complainant
requested. Within the record, correspondence both before and after her breach allegation
confirmed the Agency had indeed followed-up on her voucher.

Finally, Complainant protested inadequate union representation during settlement negotiations.
We carefully reviewed the record but note that Complainant’s appeal did not fault the Agency
denying her union access. Instead, her appeal raised a matter that implicated union-related inaction
that was outside of EEOC’s jurisdiction. Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No.
0520140173, (Jun. 10, 2014).

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no breach of the subject the settlement
agreement.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if 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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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).
4 2019004748

All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request 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 agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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.

5 2019004748

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

September 18, 2019
Date