[Redacted], Denisse Y., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 13, 2022

Appeal No. 2022002625 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 13, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Denisse Y.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022002625 Agency No. 4E-926-0068-21 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated March 11, 2022, 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 At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Custodian at the Agency’s Post Office facility in Diamond Bar, California. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August 5, 2021, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: (1) It is agreed by all parties to place the 14 Day Suspension dated July 23, 2021, in abeyance for a term of one (1) year with a six (6) month review and if no further occurrences, the suspension will be rescinded. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s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. 2022002625 2 By letter to the Agency dated March 8, 2022, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement (Agreement) and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on February 19, 2022, she received notification that she had been issued a 14-day suspension to run from March 26 to April 8, 2022, but that she had not been found guilty of anything. In its March 11, 2022, FAD, the Agency concluded there was no breach of the Agreement. Citing information from Complainant’s supervisor, the Agency stated that Complainant was sent a letter “notifying her that a review was completed per the settlement agreement … and that management determined she would serve the suspension.” Immediately thereafter, the FAD noted that Complainant “was not sent a 14-day suspension on February 19, 2022.” Additionally, the Agency decision stated that when the six-month review, referenced in the Agreement, was completed Complainant had since received a Letter of Warning dated September 7, 2021, and a 14-day Notice of Suspension dated November 30, 2021. 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). As an initial matter, we note that both Complainant and the Agency have provided very little information on appeal. With respect to Complainant, she has not explained how being issued a 14-day suspension on February 19, 2022, amounts to a breach of the Agreement. The Agreement does not prohibit the Agency from every issuing Complainant a 14-day suspension or other disciplinary action in the future. As for the Agency, the meaning behind the FAD’s statement that Complainant “was not sent a 14-Day Suspension on February 19, 2022” is unclear since the Agency also included an attachment showing that it issued Complainant a notification dated February 15, 2022, stating “you will serve your suspension for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days.” Since Complainant claimed that she received notice of the suspension on February 19, 2022, the FAD’s statement that Complainant was not issued a 14-day suspension on February 19, 2022, is perplexing. 2022002625 3 In any event, the notification further indicated that the suspension in question stemmed from the earlier suspension dated July 23, 2021, referenced in the Agreement, that had been held in abeyance by the Agreement but now was no longer being held in abeyance due to the fact that Complainant’s “conduct still continues to be unacceptable.” On appeal, Complainant argues that she has been issued “two 14-day suspensions for the same alleged incident.” We note however that, according to Complainant’s own appeal statement, the 14-day suspension (Suspension 1) that was held in abeyance pursuant to the Agreement was originally issued on July 23, 2021, and addressed actions that occurred prior to that date. A review of the November 30, 2021, 14-day suspension notice (Suspension 2), however, shows that it was issued for actions that occurred on October 26, 2021, which is after the events addressed in Suspension 1. As such, even assuming the Agency carries out both suspensions2 Complainant has neither shown that they both cover the same incident, nor has she established that the Agency breached the Agreement. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s decision finding no breach is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx 2 On appeal, Complainant states a grievance has been filed regarding Suspension 2. 2022002625 4 Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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. 2022002625 5 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 October 13, 2022 Date