0120100853
05-27-2011
Sharron Jones, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Sharron Jones,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100853
Agency No. 4F-956-0025-05
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
determination by the Agency dated October 22, 2009, 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 Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution
Center (P&DC) in Sacramento, CA. Believing that the Agency subjected her
to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor
to initiate the EEO complaint process. On May 11, 2005, Complainant and
the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The
settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
[Complainant] shall commence duty as a Full-Time Unassigned Regular
Mail Processing Clerk in Automation on Tour 3 at the Sacramento,
P&DC. [Complainant’s] schedule will be 1800 to 0030, with Tuesdays and
Wednesdays as her scheduled days off. Her seniority will be retroactive
to October 30, 2004.
By letter to the Agency dated August 30, 2009, 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 on August 24, 2009, the Agency sent her home
and told her to go on Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs (OWCP)
benefits. Complainant alleged that she was performing Mail Processing
Clerk duties when the Agency sent her home. Complainant further alleged
that she was not performing machine work because the Agency never trained
her to perform those duties.
In its October 22, 2009, decision, the Agency concluded that it had not
breached the settlement. In support of its decision, the Agency cited
to Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997), and Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request
No. 05910576 (August 29, 1991), which held that where an individual
bargains for a position without any specific terms as to the length of
service, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of
the parties to include employment in that exact position ad infinitum. The
Agency noted that Complainant was provided with a Full-Time Regular Mail
Processing Clerk position on Tour 3 for over four years in accordance
with the settlement agreement. The Agency also noted that Complainant
filed a new complaint on the same issue under EEO Case No. 1F-957-0056-09.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Commission’s decisions
in Holley and Parker must be vacated. Complainant contends that those
decisions violate the Commission’s position on the viability, support,
and encouragement of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Further,
Complainant contends that her instant case is different than both Holley
and Parker. Specifically, Complainant contends that she was taken out of
her position and sent home, and there is no proof of an Agency national
reorganization affecting her. Lastly, Complainant contends that both
Holley and Parker do not support Congressional and Commission mandates
for ADR.
In response, the Agency contends that Complainant was sent home on
August 24, 2009, in accordance with Section 546 of the Employee and
Labor Relations Manual (ELM) pertaining to reassignment of employees
injured on duty. The Agency contends that Complainant was paid by OWCP
from August 24, 2009, to October 16, 2009. The Agency contends that
Complainant returned to work on October 17, 2009, and is working in a
mail processing position on Tour 3.
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 (Dec. 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
(Aug. 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).
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement that places a
complainant into a specific position, without defining the length of
service or other elements of the employment relationship, will not
be interpreted to require the agency to employ the complainant in the
identical job specified forever. Papac v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05910808 (Dec. 12, 1991) and Elliott v. U. S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01970474 (Aug. 27, 1997).
In the instant case, we find that Complainant has not established that
the Agency breached the settlement agreement. We note that the Agency
assigned Complainant to a position as a Full-Time Unassigned Regular
Mail Processing Clerk in Automation on Tour 3 on May 14, 2005, in full
compliance with the settlement agreement. Complainant was assigned to that
position for approximately four years, until she was sent home on August
24, 2009. The Agency indicated that Complainant was sent home because
of an injury she sustained. The Agency indicated that Complainant was
sent home in accordance with its ELM pertaining to the reassignment of
employees injured on duty. Under these circumstances, the Agency was
not obligated to further maintain Complainant’s assignment. As such,
the Commission finds that the Agency correctly determined that it did
not breach the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach was proper and is
hereby AFFIRMED.
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 (Nov. 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
May 27, 2011
Date
2
0120100853
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120100853