0120172069
01-04-2018
Hallie X,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hallie X,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172069
Agency No. 4E-890-0015-17
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 8, 2017, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Distribution Clerk at the Agency's Paradise Valley facility in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On February 24, 2017, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [The Manager] agrees to credit 16 hours sick leave to the [Complainant's] sick leave balance for the date [of] November 18, 2016 and November 19, 2016. [The Manager] agrees to process the request to have the sick leave credited by March 15, 2017.
By letter to the Agency dated April 3, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to make the change to her sick leave in the timeline that was agreed upon in the settlement agreement. Complainant indicated that the delay was caused when the Manager provided her with forms for her signature with incorrect information.
In its May 8, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that it had complied with the settlement agreement. The Agency asserted that the Manager prepared the documents to credit Complainant with the sick leave as stated in the settlement agreement, on March 24, 2017 and again on March 31, 2017. The Agency indicated that Complainant was paid the leave on April 21, 2017. The Agency noted a delay from the days indicated in the settlement agreement. However, the Agency pointed in part to Complainant for the delay.
This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant asserted that there was no change in check stubs between pay period 7 and 8 for 2017. Complainant asserted that management made false statements on the documentation. As such, Complainant asked that the Commission reinstate her EEO complaint.
ANALYSIS
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).
In the instant case, the record indicates that management drafted the documents to provide Complainant with 16 hours of sick leave after March 15, 2017, as stated in the settlement agreement. However, despite the delay, the record shows that between pay periods 7 and 8 in 2017, the Agency processed the credit of 16 hours of sick leave. We note that Complainant's sick leave balance in pay period 7 was 4 hours and in pay period 8, the leave balance began at 20 hours. As such, the record shows that the Agency processed Complainant's credit of 16 hours of leave albeit after the deadline stated in the settlement agreement.
Given these circumstances. we find that any breach by the Agency was de minimus and attributable to Complainant's inaction. We find that the Agency is in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement. A de minimus breach which does not undermine the settlement agreement's purpose or effect, such as a missing a time deadline by one day, does not support a finding that the agency breached the agreement. See Baron v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05930277 (September 30, 1993) (two week delay in transfer of official and letter of regret rather than letter of apology found to be substantial compliance). The record indicates that the Agency satisfied its obligations to the Complainant under the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (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
January 4, 2018
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120172069
2
0120172069