01a53517
10-14-2005
Vanessa L. Davis, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Vanessa L. Davis v. United States Postal Service
01A53517
October 14, 2005
.
Vanessa L. Davis,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A53517
Agency No. 4F-900-0093-03
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision
by the agency dated March 10, 2005, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the March 26, 2003 settlement agreement into which
the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Management will input requested leave. If documentation is requested by
management [complainant] will provide it within 3 days of return to work
or usage.
The request for reviewing [complainant's] file - management will allow
the review of file within 10 days in the presence of the shop steward.
Previously, by letter to the agency dated April 11, 2003, 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 failed to input her leave, pay her for
her leave, or allow her to review her personnel file. Complainant also
asked "to be made whole" and for interest for the time she should have
been paid.
In a prior decision dated September 23, 2003, the agency determined that
no breach of the settlement agreement occurred and that complainant had
received all of the pay owed to her and had been given the opportunity
to see her file as agreed. Complainant appealed the agency's final
decision and in Vanessa L. Davis v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A40474 (February 19, 2004), we vacated the agency's
determination regarding breach and ordered the agency to supplement the
record with evidence related to the input of complaint's requested leave
and an affidavit from the Station Manager, at the time the agreement
was entered, addressing whether complainant was allowed to review her
personnel file. Following its compliance with our order, the agency
issued a second final decision, dated March 10, 2005, finding that no
breach of the settlement had occurred.
In the instant appeal, complainant states that she submitted all requested
documentation regarding her leave in a timely manner, but the agency
delayed inputting the information and delayed paying her, creating a
hardship for her. Further, complainant states that it was a year and
a half after the settlement agreement was signed before she was allowed
to review her file as agreed. Complainant therefore requests that she
be paid interest on the money for every pay period that the requested
leave was late. The agency argues that all actions taken to comply with
the settlement agreement were taken in a timely manner.
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).
In the instant case, we find that complainant does not allege that she has
not received leave or pay that she has been owed and that complainant
concurs with the agency that she has been permitted to review her
personnel file. We find the agency has substantially complied with
the terms of the settlement agreement and that no breach has occurred.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's determination that no breach of the
settlement agreement has occurred.
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
October 14, 2005
__________________
Date