01993522
05-02-2000
Freela H. Shay, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Freela H. Shay, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01993522
) Agency No. 4A088004499
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated March 11, 1999, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the January 20, 1999 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to
as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) the responsible management official (RMO) agrees to arrange for
an intervention program to be held at the Branchville facility at the
earliest possible time, preferably within a month,
(2) the RMO agrees to contact the financial office to have them run
reports for higher level work hours, for the [fiscal year] 1998, on both
[CW1] and [CW2],
(3) the RMO will contact the Postmaster to advise that due to recent
information, CW2 will no longer be used on higher level.
By letter to the agency dated February 10, 1999, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency reinstate her EEO complaint. Specifically, complainant
alleges that she met with agency officials to discuss implementation of
the settlement agreement. During the meeting, the parties agreed that
complainant could perform�204B� work from her home office. After the
204B agreement was reached, the complainant argues that the agency
informed her coworkers about the details of the agreement. As a result,
the complainant contends that her husband, Postmaster at complainant's
facility, was retaliated against. Complainant argues that agency
officials held several meetings with her husband, including a crisis
intervention. Complainant says that some agency employees believe that
the 204B arrangement violated the agency's anti-nepotism policies.
In its March 11, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it complied with
the terms of the settlement agreement. On appeal, the agency argues
that there is no basis for the Commission to reinstate the complaint.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 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. If
the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with the
terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant shall
notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within
30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged
noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of the agreement
be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the complaint be
reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b) provides that the agency shall
resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the
agency has not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the
complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt to resolve the
matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a determination
as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of the settlement
agreement or action. The complainant may file such an appeal 35 days after
he or she has served the agency with the allegations of noncompliance,
but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her receipt of an
agency's determination.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
The complainant has not identified a breach of the settlement agreement.
When the agency performed its obligations under the agreement, complainant
became dissatisfied with the unintended consequences, namely that her
coworkers discovered the details of her agreement with the agency.
Based on our review of the record in the present case, the arguments
on appeal, including those arguments not expressly addressed herein,
the Commission finds, in the present case, that complainant has failed
to sustain his burden of showing that the agency was not in compliance
with the January 20, 1999 settlement agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 2, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised
regulations governing the EEOC's federal sector complaint process
went into effect. These regulations apply to all federal sector
EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative process.
Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations found
at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.