0120081720
05-15-2008
Maryam D. Munir, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Maryam D. Munir,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081720
Agency No. 4F-900-0099-04
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated February 20, 2008, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the February 23, 2004 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402; .405;
and .504(b).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Station Manager [(S1)] researched [complainant's] request for (8) eight
hours of limited duty work. Upon review of Doctors recommendations and
confirmation from Labor Relations, [complainant] was offered and accepted
a position working (8) eight hours. Both management and [complainant]
are satisfied with the outcome.
Subsequently, complainant alleged that the agency was in breach of
the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant alleged that,
on October 2, 2007, the agency sent her home before she worked eight
hours, and she asked for reinstatement of the underlying EEO complaint.
In its final determination, the agency found that it was in compliance
with the February 2004 agreement. The agency stated that management
sent complainant home because there was no work available within her
restrictions.
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. Department of Defense,
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. Department 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. United States Postal
Service, 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 find that the agency did not breach the settlement
agreement with complainant. On February 23, 2004, the agency agreed to
place complainant in a position working 8 hours, which it apparently did.
Now, after 3 1/2 years, the agency found it necessary to send complainant
home because 8 hours of work was not available. We find that such agency
action does not constitute a breach of the February 2004 settlement
agreement. 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. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13,
1997); Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05910576 (August
29, 1991). We find that complainant failed to show a breach. However, if
complainant believes that the agency has further discriminated her based
on protected bases, she may allege a subsequent act of discrimination
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106, and should seek EEO counseling.
Based on the above, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
May 15, 2008
__________________
Date
2
0120081720
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120081720