0120150657
05-12-2015
Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150657
Agency No. 4H390008409
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated November 25, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Custodian at the Agency's West Biloxi Station in Biloxi, Mississippi.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August 14, 2009, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will be given a custodial position at West Station effective August 15, 2009. [Complainant] will work within his limitations.
It appears undisputed that Complainant was placed in a limited duty Custodial position at West Station effective August 15, 2009, as agreed to in the settlement. However, five years later, Complainant sought EEO counseling on October 20, 2014, and alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that in September 2014 he was placed in a new modified position with changed work hours. Complainant also stated he was given oral instructions by management that violated his medical work restrictions.
In its November 25, 2014 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in violation of the agreement. The Agency noted that the agreement did not say anything about work hours, and presented a statement from relevant management that Complainant was not being worked outside of his medical limitations.
ANALYSIS
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, it appears undisputed that the Agency complied with the terms of the settlement agreement in 2009. Complainant's breach claim concerns a modification in his position and hours that occurred five years later. The Commission has held that where an individual bargains for a position without any specific terms as to the length of service, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of the parties to include employment in that exact position ad infinitum. See Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997); Papac v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05910808 (Dec. 12, 1991); see also Parker v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Request No. 05910576 (Aug. 30, 1991). This is particularly true where, as here, the individual has been assigned to a position pursuant to a settlement agreement and has held the position for a period of time. See Gish v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01950923 (Aug. 14, 1995). Thus, we find that under the facts of this case, the Agency did not breach the 2009 agreement when it changed Complainant's work hours in September 2014.
We note that Complainant appears to have raised a denial of reasonable accommodation claim when he contacted the EEO counselor and raised his breach allegations. Complainant argues that he was receiving oral instructions to work outside of his medical restrictions and is being denied work because the Agency will not accommodate him. This is a new claim of discrimination, rather than an allegation of breach of the 2009 settlement agreement. If the Agency is not already processing these allegations as a new complaint and Complainant wishes to pursue these matters as new claims of discrimination, he should contact an Agency EEO counselor within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If he does so, the Agency should consider his October 20, 2014 EEO counseling contact as his initial contact for timeliness purposes.
Accordingly, the Agency's determination that it did not breach the settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
May 12, 2015
__________________
Date
2
0120150657
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120150657