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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 6, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001449 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 6, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Stephine S.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022001449 Agency No. 4C-250-0014-21 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated December 21, 2021, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a February 11, 2021 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 relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Rural Carrier in Madison Heights, Virginia. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On February 11, 2021, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The February 11, 2021 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: The parties agree to backdate, Madison Heights VA R007, PS Form 4241-A from the last transaction of December 19, 2020, to October 10, 2020. The back dating of PS Form 4241-A will reflect standard hours of 52.32 and evaluated hours of 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. 2022001449 2 L44K with an effective date of October 10, 2020.2 In addition, the parties agree to compensate [Complainant] via a one-time lump sum payout of $600.00 which will be subject to standard deductions. This agreement will resolve both the EEO Case No. 4C-250-0014-21 and its companion grievance NRLCA Case #MH112020CJ. By letter to the Agency dated September 8, 2021, Complainant alleged breach and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to pay her two months of back-pay. In its December 21, 2021 decision, the Agency found no breach. The Agency determined that the agreement did not provide that Complainant would receive two months of back pay as she had claimed. Instead, the agreement backdated the PS Form 4241-A to cover the period starting on October 10, 2020, in order to process future salary adjustments to the standard hours, evaluated hours and salary for Complainant’s route, and to provide a $600.00 lump sum payout. The Agency asserted it met its affirmative obligations pursuant to the agreement. This appeal followed. 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). In the instant case, we find that Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency breached the settlement as alleged. The record indicates that postal routes are evaluated on a yearly basis to determine the standard hours, evaluated hours and salary for the guaranteed period. PS Form 4241-A, Rural Route Evaluation is processed each year at the start of the guaranteed period to account for any route adjustments. 2 It appears from the record that the original PS Form 4241-A was dated October 22, 2020, and the settlement agreement moved the effective date to October 10, 2020. 2022001449 3 Here, the agreement obligated the Agency to back date the evaluation of route 007 to October 10, 2020. As a result, the new PS Form 4241-A changed the standard hours, evaluated hour and salary for Complainant’s route as of October 10, 2020. However, because the parties did not know the date prior to October 10, 2020, that the standard and evaluated hours became invalid for route 007, the agreement provided for a lump sum payment to Complainant of $600. The record indicates that the lump sum payment was provided to compensate Complainant for the unknown time prior to October 10, 2020, that she worked route 007 with the incorrect designated standard and evaluated hours. The record shows that the Agency did provide Complainant with the $600 payment minus standard deductions as provided in the agreement. Upon review, we find that Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency breached the agreement as alleged. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Agency’s final determination that the settlement agreement was not breached 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 2022001449 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. 2022001449 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 December 6, 2022 Date