0120103734
01-31-2011
Marion S. Stanley, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.
Marion S. Stanley,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120103734
Agency No. 1B-019-0006-09
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a letter of
determination by the Agency dated August 18, 2010, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a December 9, 2009 settlement agreement.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
The December 9, 2009 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,
that:
Both Counselee ([Complainant]) and Management official ([Manager
Maintenance]) agree to meet on June 10, 2010 to discuss the staffing
needs of field maintenance operations, including changing the counselee's
non-service days.
By letter to the Agency dated July 6, 2010, Complainant alleged breach.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the meeting on June 10, 2010 did
not take place because the Manager Maintenance was out for three weeks.
Complainant further stated that the June 10, 2010 meeting was supposed
to be with [Manager Maintenance], so it seems to me there was no need
for the postponement."
In its August 18, 2010 letter of determination, the Agency found no
breach. The Agency noted that the Manager, Field Maintenance OPS
(M1) stated that on July 14, 2010, she met with Complainant and her
representative to discuss the staffing needs of Field Maintenance.
The Agency noted that M1 acknowledge that while the July 14, 2010 meeting
was somewhat behind the meeting schedule date identified in the agreement,
Agency management had done all that was stipulated in the settlement
agreement.
The record contains a copy of M1's affidavit dated July 19, 2010.
Therein, M1 stated that on July 14, 2010, she met with Complainant and
her union representative to discuss staffing needs. M1 further stated
"the meeting lasted approximately 15 minutes. Both parties were given
the opportunity to present their argument and discuss the decision."
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).
The Commission, after careful consideration of the record and the
arguments on appeal, finds that Complainant has not met her burden
of establishing that the Agency breached the settlement agreement.
In the instant case, Complainant has alleged that the Agency breached the
settlement agreement for failure to adhere to the agreed upon time frame
and Agency management official to meet with her and the time for meeting
to discuss staffing need of field maintenance operations, including
changing Complainant's non-service days. However, the Commission has
held that the failure to satisfy a time frame specified in a settlement
agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial compliance its
terms, especially when all required actions were subsequently completed.
Lazarte v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (Apr. 25,
2006); Sortino v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05950721 (Nov. 21,
1996); Centore v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04637
(Nov. 2, 2000) (a few days after sixty day time period for compliance
was not a material breach of settlement agreement). The record reveals
that on July 14, 2010, M1 met with Complainant and her representative
to discuss the staffing needs of Field Maintenance, including changing
Complainant's non-service days.
We further find that although Complainant and her representative did
not meet with Manager Maintenance, they met with M1 to discuss staffing
needs of field maintenance operations, including changing Complainant's
non-service days. Thus, the Commission finds that the Agency
substantially complied with the settlement agreement, even though it
did not meet the agreed upon time frame and Agency management official.
Accordingly, the Agency's finding of no breach of the December 9, 2009
settlement agreement 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
January 31, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120103734
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120103734
5
0120103734