Aruna K. Gandhi, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 5, 2000
01a03164 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 5, 2000)

01a03164

07-05-2000

Aruna K. Gandhi, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Aruna K. Gandhi v. United States Postal Service

01A03164

July 5, 2000

Aruna K. Gandhi, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A03164

) Agency No. 4A-0700-211-99

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated March 10, 2000, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of the July 16, 1999 Settlement Agreement into

which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660

(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

The Settlement Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that �the management

official reserves the administrative prerogative to review the current

disciplinary action, i.e., 14-day suspension dated May 13, 1999, in

contemplation and review of updated medical documentation as per the

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requests of March 5, 1999. Upon this

consideration, the management official will determine the possibility

of rescinding the disciplinary action and making the employee whole.�

By letters to the agency dated January 25, 2000 and February 3, 2000,

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 supervisor was

given a sufficient amount of time to review the material and remove the

discipline. Complainant further alleged that her representative stated

that the supervisor was not removing the discipline because it was his

understanding that complainant had not provided the FMLA information

within 30 days of the Agreement and that he would not have removed the

discipline anyway.

In its March 10, 2000 FAD, the agency concluded that the Settlement

Agreement had not been breached. In reaching this conclusion, the

agency stated in spite of the mistaken 30-day time frame imposed by the

supervisor, the supervisor did in fact review the 14-day suspension and

subsequently a determination was made to reduce it. A pre-arbitration

meeting in December of 1999 modified the suspension to 7 days with 5 days

back pay in an arbitration Settlement Agreement on January 18, 2000.

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 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 record shows that complainant's 14-day suspension

issued on May 13, 1999, was reduced to 7 days with 5 days back pay in

accordance with a January 18, 2000 Arbitration Settlement Agreement.

Contrary to the complainant's argument, the Agreement did not state

that the agency would remove the suspension, only that it would possibly

rescind the disciplinary action in light of updated medical documentation

as per the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requests of March 5, 1999.

Because the Agreement did not explicitly express this intent, we

find that complainant failed to show how the Settlement Agreement was

breached. Accordingly, we affirm the agency final decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

July 5, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

Equal Employment Assistant Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.