Ardelle P.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 19, 2016

0120142676 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 19, 2016)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Ardelle P.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120142676

Agency No. 4F-926-0193-13

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a letter of determination by the
Agency dated February 26, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement into which the parties entered. For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s letter of determination finding no breach of the
settlement agreement.

BACKGROUND

Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August
9, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The Glendora Post Office Postmaster [ ] agreed to provide a positive
recommendation to [ ] Counselee, to enable [Complainant’s] rehire at another
office as a City Carrier Assistant (CCA). [The Postmaster] will call [Person A]
not later than August 12, 2013.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120142676

2
On October 25, 2013, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement
agreement, and requested that she be rehired by the Agency.

In its February 26, 2014 letter of determination, the Agency noted that Complainant stated that
someone from Local Services told Complainant that they did not have a written
recommendation from the Glendora Post Office Postmaster for rehiring. The Agency noted
that the Glendora Postmaster agreed to contact the Human Resources Generalist (Person A)
verbally by phone to make a recommendation, not in writing. The Agency stated that
Complainant told the EEO ADR Specialist that she was being interviewed for rehire on
November 6, 2013. The Agency noted that Complainant reported that during the interview,
the interviewer (Postmaster of Chino) said to Complainant that she had been recommended to
work again. The Agency noted that the Glendora Postmaster stated the fact that Complainant
received an interview for employment is proof that Complainant was recommended, but
recommendation does not mean guaranteed employment. The Agency noted the Human
Resources Generalist reported that Complainant failed to respond to medical inquiries. The
Agency noted Complainant claimed the agreement was not complied with and sought to
reinstate the EEO complaint at the point processing ceased. The Agency determined that the
information revealed that management fulfilled the terms of the agreement.

Thereafter, Complainant filed the present appeal. Complainant submitted a brief in support of
her appeal on November 22, 2014, which is beyond the applicable time frame. Thus,
Complainant’s brief in support of her appeal will not be considered. Even if we did consider
the brief, it would not alter our finding of no breach of the settlement agreement.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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
(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. Dep’t 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.
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).

In the instant case, we find Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the terms of
the August 9, 2013 settlement agreement. We note the agreement provided that the Glendora
Postmaster would provide a positive recommendation for Complainant to enable Complainant
0120142676

3
to be rehired at another office as a City Carrier. The agreement stated that the Glendora
Postmaster would call the HR Generalist by August 12, 2013. The record contains an affidavit
from the Glendora Postmaster stating that shortly after the EEO mediation, he contacted the
HR Generalist by phone and gave Complainant a positive recommendation. The record also
contains an affidavit from the HR Generalist stating that the Glendora Postmaster called her in
August 2013, and recommended Complainant for rehire. The HR Generalist noted that
Complainant reapplied for a CCA position in August 2013, and was interviewed on November
6, 2013, for the position of CCA. Upon review, we find the Agency has shown that it
complied with provision (1) of the settlement agreement. Although Complainant contends that
the Agency failed to provide a written recommendation, we note that the settlement agreement
did not require a written recommendation for Complainant. Rather, the settlement agreement
stated that the Glendora Postmaster will call the HR Generalist. The record reveals that the
Agency complied with this requirement. Further, we note that a positive recommendation
from the Glendora Postmaster does not ensure Complainant will be rehired by the Agency.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s letter of determination that it did not breach the settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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 Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments
must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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.
0120142676

4

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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may
request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or
costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may
request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of
court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court
has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the
time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File
a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

August 19, 2016
Date