0120073136
09-27-2007
Sherrill A. Snider, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area) Agency.
Sherrill A. Snider,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Western Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120073136
Agency No. 1E971003305
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision
(FAD) by the agency dated May 14, 2007, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the January 17, 2007 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.
According to the agency's FAD, complainant submitted a letter to the
agency dated April 25, 2007 stating that she believed the agency was in
breach of the settlement agreement because the agency failed to permit
overtime work for light and limited duty employees. In its May 14, 2007
FAD, the agency found that it had not breached its agreement because
the settlement agreement did not specifically provide for overtime
allocations to light or limited duty employees.
Complainant filed her appeal of the FAD on July 3, 2007. Complainant
asserted that she wanted to ensure that the agency granted disabled
employees overtime authorization. Under the pertinent terms of the
parties' agreement, complainant and the agency agreed as follows:
a. The Agency will pay to complainant the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) as compensatory damages. The complainant is responsible
for any taxes associated with the payment;
b. The parties agree that the above EEO complaint of discrimination and
all union grievances filed or existing on behalf of the complainant of
the date of the signing of this agreement are dismissed with prejudice.
The relevant law applicable to the parties' settlement agreement 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. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a)
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).
Applying these principles, the parties agreement as set forth in relevant
part above, does not contain any provision governing the grant or denial
of overtime. By its terms, complainant agreed to withdraw her complaint
and settle her claim in exchange for payment of a sum certain, but there
is no specific mention of how her future requests for overtime would
be handled. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there has been no
breach of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the record before us, the Commission concludes
that complainant failed to establish that the agency breached the
settlement agreement. Therefore, the agency's FAD is 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").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
____9/27/07______________
Date
2
0120073136
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120073136