0120100809
06-10-2010
Alinda Favors, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Alinda Favors,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100809
Agency No. 1H303002309
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 24, 2009 finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the July 16, 2009 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:
(1) Management agrees to pay [complainant] administrative leave pay
for 21 days. Paperwork will be initiated by July 24, 2009, with a copy
to be supplied to [complainant];
(2) [Complainant] will be able to return to work once management
receives medical documentation that she is able to return to full duty.
(3) Management agrees to attempt to set up a meeting with both
parties as soon as [complainant] is released to do so.
(4) This agreement settles all pending MSPB matters.
By letter to the agency dated August 25, 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 her manager, [named individual] refused to communicate with
her and that supervisor [named individual] states that she does not have
time to complete the paperwork.
In its November 24, 2009 FAD, the agency concluded that it complied with
the agreement between the parties. Specifically, the agency indicates
that on July 16, 2009 a Pay, Leave and Other Hours Adjustment request
form was completed in order to change complainant's hours from leave
without pay to administrative leave. The agency indicates further that
because the number of hours to be converted exceeded 80 hours, additional
paperwork was required. Accordingly, a Back Pay Decision/Settlement
Worksheet was executed on September 2, 2009. Following completion
of still more paperwork, a finance summary report on October 1, 2009
indicated that the required administrative leave payment to complainant
had been completed. Regarding provisions 2 and 3 of the agreement, the
agency maintains that there has been no breach. The agency contends that
complainant has not yet provided the appropriate medical documentation
indicating that complainant is able to return to work. As such, the
agency is not obligated to perform as outlined in provisions 2 and 3,
nor the agency indicates has it breached any provision of the agreement
as alleged.
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, the Commission finds that complainant has failed
to demonstrate that the agency has breached the agreement as alleged.
Specifically, we note that the agreement obligates the agency to complete
paperwork to pay complainant for 21 days of administrative leave to be
initiated by July 24, 2009. The agency has provided the Commission
with documentation indicating that the appropriate paperwork was so
initiated and complainant has received administrative leave as required
under the agreement. Moreover, the Commission finds that complainant
has failed to demonstrate that the agency was specifically obligated to
perform any provision under the contract relating to the communication
between complainant and her manager or that the agency breached any such
provision. Finally, we find that complainant has not demonstrated that
the agency has breached provisions 2 and 3 of the agreement as alleged.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the agency's determination that it
complied with the agreement between the parties was proper. The agency's
decision in that regard is affirmed for the reasons set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 10, 2010
__________________
Date
2
0120100809
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120100809