01990822
02-07-2000
Deborah D. Conerly, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Deborah D. Conerly v. United States Postal Service
01990822
February 7, 2000
Deborah D. Conerly, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01990822
) Agency No. 4-G-700-1027-95
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds the procedural history of this matter
somewhat confusing. However the salient facts appear to be as follows<1>:
The instant matter initially came before the agency pursuant to
complainant's January 17, 1995 complaint of employment discrimination.
The record indicates that the January 17, 1995 complaint was settled with
an agreement between the parties dated October 11, 1996. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) "[Complainant] will be placed at the top of the list for placement
as an OIC within the 707 zip code area, and will be afforded the next
available OIC assignment as an EAS-11."
The record indicates further that on December 17, 1997, complainant
initiated contact with an EEO counselor, and filed an informal complaint
alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the October 11,
1996 settlement agreement pertaining to Agency No. 4-G-700-1027-95.
Rather than processing complainant's breach allegation in the context of
the initial complaint, No. 4-G-700-1027-95, the agency allowed complainant
to file a separate complaint dated May 13, 1998 and assigned it the
separate Agency No. 4-G-700-0084-98.
Subsequently, the agency issued a final decision (FAD) dated October 6,
1998 dismissing complainant's May 13, 1998 formal complaint for failure to
state a claim. We find that the agency erred when it allowed complainant
to file a separate formal complaint alleging breach of the settlement
agreement. We will not, however, address the agency's October 6,
1998 FAD dismissing complainant's May 13, 1998 complaint because on
November 2, 1998, the agency issued a second FAD finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the October 11, 1996 settlement agreement.
On November 6, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from the final decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 2,
1998, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the October
11, 1996 settlement agreement into which the parties entered. 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); EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
In complainant's December 17, 1997 informal complaint, 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 agency failed to offer her the next available
OIC assignment as an EAS-11, as specified in the agreement.
In its November 2, 1998 FAD, the agency determined that it had complied
with the October 1, 1996 agreement between the parties. It its FAD,
the agency indicated that while complainant was not offered the first
available OIC assignment as an EAS-11 within the 707 zip code, she
was offered, and accepted an OIC assignment at a higher level office,
outside the 707 zip code, and was reimbursed for her travel expenses.
The agency maintains that the intent of the agreement was not breached
in this instance.
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 agency admits that "due to extenuating
circumstances." complainant was not given the first available OIC
assignment in the 707 area code as provided in the agreement between the
parties. Specifically, the agency stated that there was no restroom
available in the portable building that was used as a post office for
the first available OIC assignment following the date that the settlement
agreement went into effect and that as a consequence, the OIC assignment
was given to a former postmaster whose home was located near the post
office. However, the agency maintains that the intent of the agreement
was met when complainant was offered and accepted an OIC position in
another area code. We disagree.
Upon review, we determine that the intent of the agreement was to
place complainant in the first available OIC position in a particular
geographical area. This provision of the agreement was not met,
therefore, it is the decision of the Commission that the agency
breached the October 11, 1996 between the parties. The Commission finds
further that specific implementation of the agreement is impractical.
The most appropriate remedy for our finding of breach is reinstatement
of the underlying complaint. Therefore, we shall order the agency to
reinstate the settled complaint for further processing from the point
processing ceased. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c).
ORDER
The agency shall, within 30 days of the date this decision becomes
final, reinstate the settled compliant for further processing from the
point processing ceased. The agency shall send a letter to complainant
informing her that the settled complaint is being reinstated. A copy
of the agency's letter reinstating the complaint must be sent to the
Compliance Officer referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,
the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a
civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior
to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a
civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph
below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407
and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the
underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �
2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date
that you receive this decision. 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 (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:
February 7, 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 of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulation 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.