Elise Winder, Complainant,v.Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 18, 2009
0120064324 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 18, 2009)

0120064324

03-18-2009

Elise Winder, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Elise Winder,

Complainant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120064324(formerly 01A64324)

Agency No. 05-321-SSA

DECISION

On July 12, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's June 2,

2006 final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)

complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e

et seq. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation

Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

BACKGROUND

At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, complainant

worked as a record analysis clerk in Process Module 16, Process Division

4, Southeastern Program Service Center at the agency's facility in

Birmingham, Alabama.

In its final decision, the agency defined complainant's June 17,

2005 complaint as alleging that she was discriminated against on the

bases of sex (female), disability (hypertension and diabetes), and in

reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when complainant's employment

was terminated effective April 1, 2005. Further, the agency noted that

complainant alleged that her removal constituted a breach of a settlement

agreement she and the agency entered into resolving a 2002 EEO complaint.

With regard to her claim of disability discrimination, the agency found

complainant was not an individual with a disability, was not regarded as

an individual with a disability, and did not show that she is "associated

with" an individual with a disability. To the extent complainant was

entitled to a reasonable accommodation, the agency stated it fulfilled

its requirements, by advancing complainant sick and annual leave and by

allowing her to take 900 hours of LWOP in calendar year 2004. Further,

the agency stated in accordance with complainant's request, she was

allowed to see the nurse as needed and was permitted to take breaks

outside the usual break period. The agency stated that, as a courtesy,

it approved complainant's leave requests in accordance with documentation

she provided noting that she might be absent "infrequently" for her own

condition or her son's condition. However, the agency stated complainant

took advantage of this courtesy and averred that her frequent absences

became a hardship for the agency.

With regard to complainant's claim of disparate treatment based on sex and

in reprisal for prior protected activity, the agency stated complainant

was removed for excessive absenteeism. The agency noted in August 2004,

complainant was cautioned about her excessive use of Leave Without Pay

(LWOP) in the amount of 417.5 hours of LWOP since January 2004, after

exhausting all sick and annual leave and advanced sick and annual leave.

The agency stated that on October 8, 2004, complainant was issued a

written warning, indicating that in the six weeks since August 2004,

complainant used another 142.5 hours of LWOP. Complainant was warned that

should her excessive absenteeism not improve, she might be subjected to

leave restrictions or discharge. The agency stated from October 8, 2004,

through January 8, 2005, complainant took another 356.62 hours of LWOP,

in addition to accumulated or advanced sick and annual leave, which left

her with a negative balance of 66 hours of annual leave and a negative

balance of 240 hours of sick leave. The agency stated that complainant

came to work for a few hours either before a holiday or every third

consecutive day of work; causing the agency to conclude complainant

was abusing leave since she was able to make it into work in order

to avoid loss of holiday pay or to avoid certification of an illness.

The agency found complainant failed to show that its asserted reason

for its actions was a pretext for discrimination.

With regard to her claim of breach of settlement agreement, the agency

noted that the settlement agreement at issue required the agency to

recharacterize prior leave balances, limited the frequency with which

management could request medical documentation to substantiate absences

(only following an absence of three consecutive workdays), required

complainant be reassigned to the records analysis clerk position, and

required an interactive interview between complainant and her supervisor

to determine what other accommodations may be needed to enable her

to perform the essential functions of her position. The agency noted

that all of the provisions in the settlement agreement were completed.

The agency contended that as a result of the meeting between complainant

and management, complainant requested to visit the nurse as needed and

to take breaks outside her regularly scheduled break times. The agency

stated that these requests were granted and carried out by the agency.

Thus, the agency found complainant failed to demonstrate that the

agreement was breached.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

On appeal, complainant does not challenge the agency's definition of

her complaint. We note that complainant's complaint was processed as

a mixed case complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302, which

provides that at the time the agency issues a final decision, it must

advise complainant of the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection

Board (MSPB), not EEOC. Although the agency properly notified complainant

of her right to appeal to the MSPB when it issued its final decision,

complainant improperly filed an appeal with the Commission. Complainant

has raised no arguments on appeal why this appeal should be considered

by the Commission. Thus, complainant's appeal concerning her termination

is DISMISSED.

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 record reveals complainant and the agency entered into a settlement

agreement dated March 27, 2003. The settlement agreement provided,

in pertinent part, that:

(a) The Employer agrees to grant the Employee a lateral transfer to

the first available position at her same grade and step, in a work area

not under the management of her current branch chief, with no loss of

seniority or other benefits to which she is otherwise qualified.

(b) The Employer agrees to expunge the Employee's administrative time and

leave record of any entries indicating [Absence Without Leave] 'AWOL,'

and to change any such entries to indicate 'LWOP' as the reason for the

absence.

(c) It is agreed by the parties that, with respect to any absences

of three (3) or more consecutive days, the Employee shall provide

documentation from a medical professional covering the days of such

absence, to be provided to the Employer within two (2) working days of

the Employee's return to work. It is understood by the parties that

this provision applies to absences due to the medical or dental treatment

of the Employee, as well as for those caused by such treatments for the

Employee's minor dependent.

(d) It is agreed by the parties that, within ten (10) working days of

Employee's transfer, Employee will meet with the supervisor and/or manager

of the new work area to engage in the interactive process in order to

best fashion and implement reasonable accommodations for the Employee.

In the present case, the agency contends it reassigned complainant to

the records analysis clerk position in accordance with the March 27,

2003 agreement. In her affidavit, complainant states she had been in the

records analysis clerk position since April 2003. The agency contends

that it has expunged AWOL entries and changed them to LWOP in accordance

with provision (b). Further, the agency states that it complied with

provision (c), in requiring complainant to bring in medical documentation

to cover absences where complainant has been absent for three consecutive

days or more. Finally, the agency notes that an interactive interview

was held on May 7, 2003, with complainant to determine what accommodations

would be necessary for complainant to perform the essential functions of

her records analysis clerk position. The record contains a memorandum

entitled "Record of Interview" documenting an interactive meeting

was held on May 7, 2003, between complainant and the Module Manager,

Module 16, during which complainant requested to be permitted to be

able to visit the nurse as needed and requested to take breaks outside

regularly-scheduled break times. The agency agreed to both requests.

Upon review, we find complainant failed to show that the agency breached

any of the provisions of the March 27, 2003 settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no breach of settlement

agreement is AFFIRMED.

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

March 18, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120064324

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

6

0120064324