01a43220
02-11-2005
Domanique Dixon, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Domanique Dixon v. United States Postal Service
01A43220
February 11, 2005
.
Domanique Dixon,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A43220
Agency No. 4E-800-0114-99
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a decision
by the agency dated March 8, 2004, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the August 30, 2001 Settlement Agreement into which
the parties entered.
The August 30, 2001 Settlement Agreement provisions which complainant
alleged were breached provided, in part, that:
Respondent agrees that there shall be no discrimination or retaliation of
any kind against any person because of opposition to any practice deemed
illegal under the ADA or Title VII, as a result of filing this charge,
or for giving testimony, assistance or participating in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding or a hearing under the aforementioned Acts.
In summary, the pertinent parts of the August 30, 2001 Settlement
Agreement provided that complainant will receive $25, 000 in full
settlement of her claims for damages under Title VII and the ADA,
complainant's attorney will receive $10,000, in full settlement of claims
for attorney's fees and the agency will provide her with up to 40 hours
of on-the-clock training in the Safety area.
By a statement dated November 13, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the August 30, 2001 Settlement Agreement.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency violated the agreement
by changing her limited duty assignment. In its March 8, 2004 decision
the agency concluded that the August 30, 2001 Settlement Agreement was
not breached. The agency stated that complainant's allegations of a
change of limited duty job offer and management alleged retaliation,
will be addressed in complainant's current EEO complaint 1E-801-0011-04.
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, we find that the agency did not breach the terms
of the August 30, 2001 Settlement Agreement. Complainant's claim does
not relate to the substantive terms of the August 30, 2001 Settlement
Agreement. Since there is nothing in the settlement agreement that
discusses complainant's change in duty assignment, the agency has not
breached the settlement agreement. Claims of retaliation are processed as
separate complaints. See 29 C.F.R.� 1614.504(c). The record indicates
that the claim is the subject of a separate complaint and is being
processed in Agency No. 1E-801-0011-04.<1>
The agency's decision finding no breach of the 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 11, 2005
__________________
Date
1On May 20, 2004, the agency issued a
�decision� concluding that agency number 1E-801-0011-04 is part of a
class complaint. The agency stated that it was holding 1E-801-0011-04 in
abeyance until the Commission issues a decision regarding certification
of the class complaint.