0120070601
02-27-2007
Dolores Fulton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Dolores Fulton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070601
Agency No. 6W-000-0002-06
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a letter of
determination by the agency dated September 25, 2006, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of a June 14, 2006. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The June 14, 2006 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
...management will assign a System Accountant from the Field
Sales Branch to do an assessment of [complainant's] skills in
resolving missing store days, exceptions with daily sales and
stock ledger transactions, and provide training if and where
required. Any training required will be identified and developed
mutually by [complainant] and assigned System Accountant, and
[complainant's Supervisor]. Training will be written, signed
and administered until accomplished according to plan.
By e-mail to the agency dated August 9, 2006, complainant claimed breach.
Specifically, complainant claimed that the results of the assessment of
her skills "was petty and nit-picking because overall, the knowledge
that I have along with performing my duties, using the old exception
form, did not stop me from resolving and completing the exceptions."
Complainant further claimed that the recommended training was already
available for everyone. Furthermore, complainant claimed that she was
not provided special training "such as FIW trainer, higher level details
as DCS 16 & DCS 18 and whatever updated training needed to perform the
duties."
In its September 25, 2006 letter of determination, the agency essentially
found no breach. The agency further found that complainant's Supervisor
assigned a Senior System Accountant and Systems Accountant to assess
complainant's skills in of RCU processing and missing store reports,
stock ledgers, error directory, and disruptions; and that the assessment
took place between July 13 and 18, 2006. The Supervisor stated that
the results of the observation were forwarded to the Manager, ACO
(Manager), who identified six areas where complainant would benefit from
additional training. The Supervisor also stated that the Manager met
with complainant to review the observation report and discuss training
schedule.
The record contains copies of affidavits from the Senior Systems
Accountant (SSA) and System Accountant (SA). Therein, SSA and SA stated
that from July 13, 2006 to July 18, 2006, they observed complainant in
her daily work duties in the areas of RCU and stock ledger. SSA and SA
further stated that they prepared an observation report and gave the
report to the Manager. SSA and SA stated that they then met with the
Manager, complainant and her Supervisor to discuss their report; and it
was agreed that complainant would be provided additional training.
The record also contains a copy of an affidavit from the Manager.
Therein, the Manager stated that upon her receipt of the report from SSA
and SA, she arranged a meeting with complainant and her Supervisor. The
Manager further stated that on July 25, 2006, she met with complainant,
her Supervisor, SSA and SA to review the report and to develop a
training plan. The Manager stated "I then explained to [complainant]
that I felt the training sessions we had scheduled for the entire branch
would meeting her training needs, as identified in the evaluations."
The Manager stated that during the meeting, complainant did not question
the report or raise objections to the proposed training plan. The Manager
stated the following the meeting, she e-mailed complainant a summary of
the meeting and the proposed training plan. The Manager stated that on
August 1, 2006, complainant responded to her email disputing "each of the
observations and rejected the proposed training plan as not meeting the
requirements of the settlement." Furthermore, the Manager stated that
complainant "had been in attendance at all subsequent training, though."
The record contains a copy of complainant's e-mail dated August 1, 2006 to
the Manager. Therein, complainant stated "I do not agree with this list
because it does not address the reason I file EEO. This does not serve
as an EEO settlement." Complainant further stated that the recommended
training was "for everyone that wasn't privilege to special training on
stock ledger and other privilege information regarding FSB, whatever it
may have been." Specifically, complainant claimed that her underlying
complaint was in regard to not being provided proper training for higher
level assignments and not being detailed to higher level positions.
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 Commission determines that the terms of the agreement require
management to assign a System Accountant from the Field Sales Branch
to conduct an assessment of complainant's skills in resolving missing
store days, exceptions with daily sales and stock ledger transactions,
and provide training if and where required. If complainant wanted to be
provided with training providing her with the knowledge necessary for
consideration to higher level assignments and higher levels details, she
could have negotiated with the agency to include such a provision into the
settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye v. General Service Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01851903 (March 4, 1987). Thus, the Commission finds
the agency complied with the June 14, 2006 settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the instant
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 27, 2007
________________
Date
2
0120070601
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120070601
5
0120070601