01a53204 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 7, 2005)

Sharon K. Watson, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 7, 2005

01a53204 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 7, 2005)

01a53204

07-07-2005

Sharon K. Watson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

Sharon K. Watson v. United States Postal Service

01A53204

July 7, 2005

Sharon K. Watson,

Complainant,

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Western Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A53204

Agency No. 4E-995-0030-04

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated February17, 2005, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of the August 11, 2004 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.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(2) Complainant will receive a $50,000.00 lump sum payment. The agency

will submit the paperwork for this lump sum payment between January 1

and January 15, 2005. Appropriate taxes will be withheld from this lump

sum payment; and

Upon provision of proof of purchase of a ticket for a trip on Alaska

Airlines to Seattle during April of 2004, the agency shall reimburse the

price of the ticket. Proof of purchase shall be either a copy of the

electronic ticket and/or credit card billing proof. Complainant will

have 90 days from the date of this settlement to provide this proof

of purchase.

By letter to the agency dated February 1, 2005, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that

the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant

alleged that the agency erroneously withheld Social Security, Medicare and

Federal Taxes from the lump sum payment. Complainant alleged that the

lump sum should be processed as a total payment and any required taxes

should be paid by the agency in addition to the lump sum. Complainant

also alleged that she did not receive reimbursement for travel costs in

the amount of $373.95, that was also covered in the settlement agreement.

In its June 17, 2004 FAD, the agency concluded there was no breach of

settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency alleged that complainant

specifically agreed in the settlement agreement to having taxes withheld.

The agency noted that there is nothing in the settlement agreement in

regard to taxes being paid in addition to the $50,000.00. The agency

also alleged that the payment of $373.95 was issued to complainant but

was not received by her; however, the agency contacted the Data Center

and the check was reissued. The agency further stated that a copy of

check number 0101952832, dated February 17, 2005 issued to complainant

for travel expenses in the amount of $373.95, was cashed by complainant

on or about February 28, 2005.

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, we concluded that the agency did not breach the settlement

agreement at issue. We find that the agency properly concluded that

Social Security, Medicare and federal income taxes should be deducted from

the lump sum payment. Moreover, we find that as a part of the settlement

agreement complainant specifically agreed that appropriate taxes will be

withheld for the lump sum payment, and nothing in the settlement agreement

indicated that the agency should pay taxes in addition to the $50,000.00.

We also conclude that there is no evidence that the agency's delay in

issuing the check for the travel expenses in the amount of $373.95 was a

result of bad faith by the agency. Finally, the record reveals that the

agency has delivered the $373.95 check to complainant and complainant

has cashed the check; therefore, we determine that the agency has

substantially complied with terms of the agreement as detailed above.

For the aforesaid reasons, the agency's decision finding no breach of

the August 11, 2004 agreement is hereby 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").