01991760
09-03-1999
Cynthia A. Duquette, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cynthia A. Duquette, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01991760
) Agency No. 4B-018-1064-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On December 1, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 6, 1998, finding
that it was in compliance with the terms of the April 17, 1997 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402,
.504(b); EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
ISSUE
The issue presented is whether the agency properly determined that it
did not breach the settlement agreement entered into on April 17, 1997.
BACKGROUND
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Management will make its best effort to utilize the complainant in
her back-up Bulk Mail position;
(2) Management will make arrangements as soon as is practical, to
have the publication, �The Companion�, sent to the complainant at the
workplace; and
(3) Management will apprize the complainant of necessary, relevant
information concerning the Bulk Business Mail operations.
By letter to the agency dated October 13, 1998, appellant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and requested that
the agency comply with its terms. Specifically, appellant alleged that
on September 24, 1998, a mandatory training for all LDC 079 employees
was held. Appellant claimed that management allowed employee-1 who had
that designation to attend the training. The 079 designated employee-2
was not permitted to attend. Appellant alleges that the reason employee-2
was not permitted to attend the training was so that management would
not have to use appellant in the Bulk Mail room.
In its November 6, 1998 FAD, the agency concluded that management did
not use appellant in the Bulk Mail room on September 24, 1998, because
appellant was not current on the latest changes in Bulk Mail regulations.
Therefore, the agency found that there was 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.
That section further provides that if the complainant believes that the
agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement,
the complainant shall notify the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity
of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement agreement within 30
days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged
noncompliance. 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant may request
that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented
or request that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from
the point processing ceased.
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 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).
In the instant case, appellant alleges that management permitted only
employee-1 to attend training so that management would not have to use
appellant in her back-up Bulk Mail position. The training announcement
states that it only for targeted employees. The announcement also
states that management would get at least two sessions which would
allow management to send another employee to a different session to
provide for office coverage. The agency was not required to send both
employee-1 and employee-2 to the training session at the same time.
Therefore, management did not need to use appellant in her back-up Bulk
Mail position. The Commission finds that the agency did not breach the
settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons set
forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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:
September 3, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations