01A35425_r
12-30-2003
Fleeta Stallings, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Fleeta Stallings v. United States Postal Service
01A35425
December 30, 2003
.
Fleeta Stallings,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A35425
Agency No. 1I-531-0081-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an August 28,
2003 agency decision, finding that it was not in breach of the terms of
the May 6, 2003 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided that:
(1) [Complainant] may reapply for a position as a casual employee of USPS.
(2) PS Form 1750[,] dated March 23, 2001[,] will be removed from
[complainant's] personnel file by May 15, 2003.
(3) A lump sum settlement of ($1,500) One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars,
subject to applicable taxes and deductions, to be processed by May
15, 2003.
(4) All terms and conditions of this settlement to be kept confidential
by all parties to this agreement.
In a July 17, 2003 letter to the agency, complainant alleged that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, noting that the agency
owed her back pay for two years and continuing, not just for one pay
period. In a July 13, 2003 letter to the agency, complainant also alleged
that she felt threatened and intimidated into signing the settlement
agreement by the repeated sighing of the Labor Relations Specialist and
his audible and wearied breathing during the settlement process.
In its decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement, the agency
stated that the agency processed the paperwork for the check on May 15,
2003, and that complainant received it on June 17, 2003.
On appeal, complainant asserted that she was forced to sign the settlement
agreement and that she felt that she had no other choice but to accept
the check for $1,500.00 provided for in the settlement agreement.
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).
We find that the settlement agreement is valid and that complainant
entered into the agreement voluntarily. Although complainant asserted
that she felt pressured and intimidated into signing the settlement
agreement, the Commission finds that she has not submitted any
persuasive evidence to demonstrate that she was coerced into accepting
the settlement. We also find no breach of the settlement agreement.
Although complainant alleges that the agency is in breach because
it owes her back pay for two years and continuing, there is no such
provision contained in the agreement. The only provision in the agreement
concerning the payment of money is paragraph (3) and the record contains
a copy of a check payable to complainant from the agency in the amount
of $1,500.00. Had complainant wanted back pay included as part of the
agreement, she should have negotiated its inclusion.
The agency's determination that it did not breach 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
December 30, 2003
__________________
Date