0120093563
12-30-2009
Betty R. Boyd, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Betty R. Boyd,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120093563
Agency No. 1K209001906
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 15, 2009, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the August 22, 2006 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. Complainant shall provide management with comprehensive medical
documentation that specifically indicates she can work more than 20
hours per
week and whether she can work six or seven days a week with frequency and
duration. This documentation will be provided within thirty (30) days
of this
meeting. Upon approval by Injury Compensation and OWCP, management will
allow complainant to work additional days.
2. Complainant's supervisor apologized to complainant for the discomfort
she felt
when he approached her on June 20, 2006, because it was not his intention.
Complainant
accepted her manager's apology.
3. In the event that Injury Compensation or OWCP disallows complainant
working a
sixth or seventh day each week, complainant understands that management
cannot work her beyond the current five days at a maximum of four (4)
hours
per day. If the extra work days are approved, complainant shall receive
a new
modified job offer in her current work location.
By letter to the agency dated June 30, 2009, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to pay her for a 2000 grievance
regarding a junior mail clerk being allowed to work overtime, thereby
disallowing her the opportunity to work overtime. Complainant also stated
that she wanted management to compensate her for all the time she could
have worked since September 24, 2006, when management purportedly changed
her hours. Complainant requested compensation in the amount of $75,000.
In its July 15, 2009 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant was
under the [false] impression that management had agreed to compensate her
monetarily, even though that was not a part of the settlement agreement
at issue. The agency explained that only the issues reduced to writing
in a settlement are binding and that while complainant may have thought
that monetary compensation would be part of the settlement agreement,
it was not since it was not outlined in the written agreement. Further,
even if monetary compensation had been part of the written settlement
agreement, complainant only had 30 days to claim breach and her breach
allegations would be considered grossly untimely. In conclusion, the
settlement agreement has not been breached, as only the issues reduced
to writing are binding.
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 burden is on the party alleging breach to establish that a breach
has occurred. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission finds
that complainant has not shown that the agency has breached the settlement
agreement at issue. Recognizing that complainant details her own account
in several letters to the agency, the Commission is not swayed in finding
that the agency has breached the settlement agreement in this matter.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no settlement breach
is AFFIRMED.
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
December 30, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120093563
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120093563