0120130883
06-04-2013
Sandra J. Menyo, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sandra J. Menyo,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120130883
Agency No. 4B028006607
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated November 15, 2012, 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
The record in this matter indicates that Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process, believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination. On July 30, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that the Agency would pay Complainant $8,000.00 in compensatory damages as payment for all claims alleged in Complainant's formal discrimination complaint.
By letter to the Agency dated October 28, 2012, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant stated in her breach allegation that on October 22, 2012, an Agency official entered the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) system and changed Complainant's FMLA case number. Complainant further alleged that the alleged Agency conduct caused her FMLA leave request to be denied and permitted the Agency to issue discipline to Complainant.
In its November 15, 2012 FAD, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to identify specific provisions of the settlement agreement that were violated by Agency conduct. The Agency further indicated that Complainant's breach allegation contained references only to new claims of employment discrimination. The Agency noted that the instant settlement agreement contained no provision at all regarding FMLA. The Agency further indicted that on November 2, 2012, Complainant filed Agency Case No. 4B-060-0164-12 in which she raises the issue regarding an Agency official changing her FMLA number. Finally, the Agency indicated that Agency Case No. 4B-060-0164 was being processed by the Agency as a new claim of employment discrimination.
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).
Here, the Agency correctly noted in its final decision that the settlement agreement contains no reference to FMLA. Therefore, Complainant's new claim alleging that her FMLA case number was changed is not related to the provisions of the 2008 agreement between the parties. The Agency properly determined that Complainant's new claim should be processed as new complaint of discrimination. The Agency further indicates that on November 2, 2012, Complainant filed Agency Case No. 4B-060-0164-12 in which she raises the issue regarding an Agency official changing her FMLA case number.
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach of the agreement is affirmed for the reasons set forth herein.
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
June 4, 2013
__________________
Date
2
0120130883
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120130883