Alma L. Gibson, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 8, 2009
0120073418 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 8, 2009)

0120073418

12-08-2009

Alma L. Gibson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.


Alma L. Gibson,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Pacific Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073418

Agency No. 4F926009804

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 19, 2007, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of the March 24, 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:

Complainant will be placed in a Tour 2 CFS assignment with a

reporting time of 9:00 a.m. and non-scheduled days of Saturdays

and Sundays; complainant will start her new assignment effective

Saturday, March 27, 2004; complainant will be issued a new job

offer reflecting this assignment.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as an Automated Mail Markup Clerk (voice), Level 4, at the agency's

Santa Ana, CA, CFS Unit. The record shows that complainant received

her new work schedule on March 27, 2004, specifying a 9:00 AM to 5:50

PM work schedule. However, on April 3, 2007, complainant was notified

that her schedule had changed to 6:00 PM to 2:50 AM. On April 19, 2007,

complainant sought pre-complainant counseling, alleging that the agency

had breached the settlement agreement when it changed her work schedule

three years after the implementation of the agreement.

In its July 19, 2007 Final Letter of Determination, the agency concluded

that it had complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The agency noted that the agreement did not "stipulate that the job offer

would be maintained in perpetuity." To this end, the agency maintained

that the entire "Voice Recognition Shift" was moved to a 6:00 PM start

time due to changes in "business practices and conditions." On appeal,

complainant reiterates her argument that the April 3, 2007 schedule change

constituted a breach of the settlement agreement. Complainant contends

that she is entitled to out of schedule pay because the schedule change

resulted in her working different hours from those which she agreed

to work.

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).

The Commission has held that when a specific time frame is not specified,

the agency is required to act, or refrain from acting, for a reasonable

period of time. See Garcey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01A24396 (September 3, 2003). Parker v. Department of Defense

(Defense Logistics Agency), EEOC Request No. 05910576 (August 29,

1991) (agreement that did not specify length of service for position

to which complainant was promoted was not breached by the temporary

detail of complainant two years after the execution of the settlement

agreement). Applying these principles to the instant case, we find

that the agency's three year maintenance of the terms of the settlement

agreement was a reasonable period of time. The agreement did not specify

a time frame that complainant's work schedule would be maintained;

therefore, the agency was not bound to provide complainant a specified

schedule permanently. We find that the agency complied with the terms

of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's final

determination.

CONCLUSION

After a careful review of the record, we find that the agency complied

with the settlement agreement. Therefore, we AFFIRM the agency's

determination that no breach occurred.

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

_____12/08/09_____________

Date

2

0120073418

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120073418