01995676
09-06-2000
Deborah J. Mealey-Lopez, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Deborah J. Mealey-Lopez v. United States Postal Service
01995676
September 6, 2000
Deborah J. Mealey-Lopez, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01995676
) Agency No. 1F946106195
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
____________________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 4, 1999, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the February 18, 1997 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).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached complainant's
settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
The parties entered into a settlement agreement on February 18, 1997,
which provided in pertinent part, that:
(1) complainant will be compensated for all hours not allowed to work,
consistent with the Department of Labor Compensation Programs (CA-8) for
accepted industrial injury claims, for all hours not allowed to work, not
to exceed eight hours a day or forty hours in a week, when the agency is
not able to provide eight hours of work within the complainant's medical
restrictions.
By letter to the agency dated April 30, 1998, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency implement the agreed upon terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency failed to proffer her a formal job offer with
work within her physical limitations.
In its June 4, 1999, final agency decision, the agency concluded that
the terms of the settlement agreement were not breached, noting that
the complainant had been offered two different limited duty positions.
Complainant, however, argued that the positions offered by the agency
on June 21, 1997, and September 30, 1997, were unacceptable due to the
physical demands of the position.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 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, the settlement agreement dated February 18, 1997,
was validly entered into by both parties. The agreement stipulates that
the agency must compensate complainant for work up to eight hours a day,
not to exceed forty hours a week, even when no work within complainant's
medical restrictions is available. The agreement, however, fails
to explicitly state that the agency must provide complainant with a
particular position. As reflected in the record, the agency proffered
complainant with two limited duty job positions in 1997, which complainant
subsequently declined due to her physical limitations.<2> Complainant
argues that the agency breached the agreement because she sits idle at
work without a formal position.<3> The agency, however, continues to
pay complainant for work up to forty hours a week. The Commission thus
finds the complainant has not established that the agency breached the
settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
The Commission finds the agency in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the agency's
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:
09-06-00 ____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.
2 The Commission notes that complainant's physician modified the physical
restrictions placed on complainant after she declined the agency's first
job offer. In his July 14, 1997 letter, her physician changed his initial
recommendation made prior to the settlement agreement to also include
a restriction of repetitive motion on all upper extremity activities.
3To the extent complainant is arguing that the agency has not accommodated
her disability, she may seek EEO counseling as to this subsequently
alleged adverse action.