Drucilla F.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 8, 20160120142402 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 8, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Drucilla F.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120142402 Agency No. 1G-761-0001-14 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final determination by the Agency dated May 2, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final determination finding no breach of a settlement agreement. BACKGROUND Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On November 20, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: Plant Manager will also investigate the allegation that [Complainant] states that SDO [Person A] paid [Employee X] night differential incorrectly during the time of November 2011. Plant Manager will notify [Complainant’s representative] prior to the end of 2013 of the findings of this investigation. By letter to the Agency dated January 27, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that her complaint be reinstated. Specifically, Complainant noted that the Plant Manager was to investigate SDO/Person A’s 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 0120142402 2 illicit payment of Night Differential to Employee X. Complainant noted that upon completion of the investigation, the Plant Manager was to apprise Complainant’s representative of those results prior to the end of 2013. Complainant alleged that the Agency has not complied with that portion of the settlement agreement. In its May 2, 2014 final determination, the Agency concluded that it did not breach the settlement agreement. The Agency noted that on January 28, 2014, both Complainant and her representative were advised by the Plant Manager of the results of the investigation. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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. Dep’t of Def., 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. Dep’t 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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 record contains an affidavit from the Plant Manager explaining that since November 20, 2013, he continued to ask Complainant’s representative for the contact name and number of the person that Complainant spoke to so that he could investigate the matter. The Plant Manager stated he did not receive the name and number until December 18, 2013. The Plant Manager explained that due to the time of year, right before the Christmas holiday season, all attempts to reach the contact person failed. The Plant Manager stated that since he had been in communication with Complainant’s representative concerning the contact number and the time frame that it took to get the contact information, that he thought that Complainant’s representative would have communicated with Complainant that he was investigating the matter. The Plant Manager stated it was not until January 24, 2014, that he was able to contact someone in Washington that could give him the necessary information. The Plant Manager stated that on January 28, 2014, when he was in the presence of Complainant and her representative during a separate EEO Redress he relayed the findings of his investigation. The settlement agreement provided the Agency would complete the investigation and report the findings of the investigation to Complainant’s representative by the end of 2013. Although the Agency did not do so within the specified time frame, it has subsequently completed the investigation and reported the findings of that investigation. The record reflects that the Plant 0120142402 3 Manager conducted the investigation and informed Complainant’s representative of the results of that investigation by January 28, 2014. Moreover, the record reflects, without dispute from Complainant, that since November 20, 2013, and continuing the Plant Manager asked Complainant’s representative for the contact information; however, the Plant Manager did not receive the relevant name and number until December 18, 2013. The Commission has held that failure to satisfy a time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial compliance of its terms, especially when all required actions were subsequently completed. See Lazarte v. Dep’t of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (April 25, 1996). Based on the foregoing, due to the delay by Complainant’s representative in providing the name and contact information of the relevant person and the holiday season, we find substantial compliance by the Agency with relevant portion of the settlement agreement. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final determination that it did not breach the settlement agreement is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0815) 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), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). 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 0120142402 4 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 (S0610) 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations April 8, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation