0120091949
09-17-2009
Doris C. Cabrales, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Doris C. Cabrales,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120091949
Agency No. 1H371000905
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 24, 2009, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 10, 2005 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Management agrees to support [complainant's] career development
in the following way: By reviewing all NCED courses for possible
opportunities for supervisory skills development and discuss and review
those that might be appropriate for [complainant]
(2) Management will provide opportunities for [complainant] to
perform on other tours and, also, receive training in the Tool and Parts
Department;
(3) [Complainant] agrees to bring to management's [named individual]
attention any problems she may be experiencing - allowing him to
proactively address her concerns; and
(4) [Named individual] agrees to speak with Union/Maintenance Craft
Director to clarify the interpretation of the 120 day rule for 204-B's
as stated in the contract.
The record reveals that complainant contacted the agency on March 25,
2008, alleging that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement,
and requested that the agency specifically implement its terms. Without
elaborating, complainant alleged that the agency failed to comply with
provisions 2 and 3.
In its February 24, 2009 FAD, the agency concluded that it complied with
the May 10, 2005 settlement agreement. In opposition to complainant's
appeal, the agency provided the Commission with copies of training records
indicating that complainant has received several training opportunities
throughout the agency including the Tools and Parts Department.
In addition, complainant's supervisor provided sworn testimony that he
has responded to training concerns complainant has brought to him in
compliance with the agreement between the parties.
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 complainant has failed to demonstrate
that the agency breached the specific provisions of the May 10, 2005
settlement agreement.
On appeal, complainant maintains that the agency has breached the terms
of the agreement by arguing that she signed the agreement in 2005 in good
faith that she would receive training in an effort to advance her career
within the agency. However, she has failed to establish that she has
been denied training opportunities in support of her career advancement.
She states on appeal that her request to attend an Automated Equipment
for Maintenance class was denied and another employee who had never shown
an interest in the training was allowed to attend. However, the agency
was not obligated by the agreement to send complainant to any specific
training class. Complainant further maintains on appeal that she has
been subjected to racial discrimination and has been treated unfairly.
However, complainant's claims of discrimination in this regard are
outside the scope of the agreement and are not part of the instant matter.
Because complainant has failed to provide evidence of the agency's breach
of the specific provisions of the agreement, we find that the agency's
determination of compliance was proper.
Accordingly, the agency's decision is hereby affirmed for the reasons
set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
September 17, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120091949
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120091949