01a53832
10-19-2005
Patricia M. Sheridan, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Patricia M. Sheridan v. United States Postal Service
01A53832
October 19, 2005
.
Patricia M. Sheridan,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A53832
Agency Nos. 1A-000-1605-93, 1A-000-1496-93, 1A-071-1005-95, 1A-075-1003-96
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a March 29, 2005
agency decision finding that it was not in breach of the settlement
agreement into which the parties had entered.
The settlement agreement, fully executed on March 19, 1997, provided in
pertinent part in paragraph 4 that:
(c) As soon as possible, no later than thirty days, after this agreement
is fully executed, the Postal Service will place [complainant] in a detail
assignment, not to exceed one year, at the Hoboken Facilities Service
Center also known as the Hoboken Real Estate Office. If placement in
this detail assignment is not made within thirty days, [complainant]
will be placed in a pay status pending assignment;
(d) .... [Complainant's] Form 50 will be changed back to the title of
Manager, Maintenance Support, EAS-17 immediately.
(e) At the conclusion of the above-referenced detail assignment, the
Postal Service will place Sheridan in an EAS-17, Manager, Maintenance
Support position in the geographical area of Hackensack, Newark, Kearny,
Elizabeth or Jersey City....
In an Information for Pre-Complaint Counseling, stamp dated by the agency
as having been received on January 10, 2005, complainant, a Manager,
Maintenance Operations Support at the NJ Metro P & DC, alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that she was not being placed in the position
of Manager of Maintenance Operations Support at the Jersey City BMC.
She stated that she was placed at the NJ Metro for pay purposes until
a position opened up but when it did, the agency did not give her the
position.
In its decision, the agency noted that complainant was alleging breach
of paragraph 4(e) when she was not placed in the position of Manager,
Maintenance Operations Support, EAS-20, at the New Jersey International
and Bulk Mail Center and another person was selected. The agency also
noted that complainant indicated that the position at the New Jersey
International & Bulk Mail Center was the first opportunity for her to
be placed in the position because there were no prior vacancies.
The agency concluded that it was not in breach of the settlement agreement
because it placed complainant in the position of Manager, Maintenance
Operations Support at the Hackensack P & DC.<1> The agency stated
that the intent of the settlement agreement was to place complainant
in the position of Manager, Maintenance Operations at a level EAS-17.
The agency further noted that complainant did apply for the position of
Manager, Maintenance Operations at the New Jersey International and Bulk
Mail Center, that she was not selected and that if she had been selected,
the position would have been a promotion from a level EAS-19 to an EAS 20.
In discussing its decision, the agency noted that as a result of the
agency's 2002 EAS pay package, that grade levels for positions were
raised and, also, positions were assigned different occupation codes.
The agency further noted that complainant's position of Manager,
Maintenance Operations Support, EAS-17, was raised to EAS-18 and its
occupation code changed from 1640-7045 to 1640-7044. The agency also
noted that the position of Manager, Maintenance Operations Support,
EAS-17 was raised to EAS-19, and its occupation code changed from
1640-7044 to 2355-0015. The agency further noted that subsequent to
these changes, and as a result of compensation changes for supervisors
for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, complainant's position at level EAS-18
was raised to EAS-19 with the occupation code changed from 1640-7044 to
2355-0021, the position that complainant currently occupies.
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).
Upon review, the Commission concludes that the agency is not in breach
of the settlement agreement. The record reveals that complainant was
placed in an EAS-17 position in New Jersey and that her position was
subsequently upgraded to an EAS-18 and an EAS-19 by compensation changes
in the agency.<2> We find that by placing complainant in the EAS-17
position in New Jersey, the agency had complied with paragraph 4(e).
The agency's decision finding no breach is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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
October 19, 2005
__________________
Date
1The agency indicated that the facility later
became the NJ Metro P & DC.
2Although the settlement agreement reflects that the position title was
to be that of Manager, Maintenance Support, the agency was in substantial
compliance when complainant was placed in a position with the title of
Manager, Maintenance Operations Support. Moreover, complainant does
not raise the title of the position as an issue.