Helen Chambers, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 1, 2000
01985101 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 1, 2000)

01985101

03-01-2000

Helen Chambers, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Helen Chambers v. United States Postal Service

01985101

March 1, 2000

Helen Chambers, )

Complainant, )

v. ) Appeal No. 01985101

) Agency No. 1-Q-1101-90

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely appealed the agency's final decision not to reinstate

her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination that the parties

had settled.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-37,660 (1999) (to

be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a),

� 1614.405, and � 1614.504).

The record indicates that complainant filed a formal complaint dated

May 29, 1990. On January 2, 1992, the parties entered into a settlement

agreement, which provided, in pertinent part, that:

Complainant would be placed into the EAS Level 23, Director of City

Operations position non-competitively at the maximum level of the pay

scale within 18 months of the date of this settlement.

By letter dated April 21, 1998, complainant alleged that the agency

breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant indicated

that she was not presently paid at the highest salary of level 23,

and her salary had not been correct since January 1993.

On May 19, 1998, the agency issued a final decision finding no settlement

breach. Specifically, the agency stated that its records indicated that

complainant was placed in the position of Director of City Operations,

EAS-23 effective March 21, 1992, at the maximum level of the pay scale,

and for the years of 1992 through 1995, she was paid at the maximum level.

The agency indicated that thereafter, on February 3, 1996, its salary

structure or range was changed based on each employee's merit evaluation.

The agency noted that complainant's salary, thus, was increased based

on her evaluations, i.e., her ratings of "Met Objectives/Expectations"

for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504 provides that if the complainant

believes that the agency failed to comply with the terms of a settlement

agreement, the complainant should notify the Director of Equal Employment

Opportunity, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement

agreement, within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or should

have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that

the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,

alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing

from the point processing ceased.

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 final decision.

The Commission has 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, and not some unexpressed intention, that

controls the contract's construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In addition, the

Commission generally follows the rule that if a 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 v. Building Engineering Services,

730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). The Commission has followed this rule

when interpreting settlement agreements. The Commission's policy in

this regard is based on the premise that the face of the agreement best

reflects the understanding of the parties.

Upon review, we find that the agency did not breach the January 21,

1992 settlement agreement. The record reveals that complainant was

placed into the EAS Level 23, Director of City Operations position at

the maximum level of the pay scale effective March 21, 1992, pursuant

to the settlement agreement. Furthermore, the record indicates that

complainant was paid at the maximum pay level from 1992 through 1995, and

her salary was changed/increased based on her merit evaluation since 1996.

Although complainant alleged that she was not paid at the maximum pay

level in 1998, we find that the settlement agreement at issue did not

provide that she would be paid at the maximum pay level indefinitely.

The Commission has held that if a settlement agreement does not include

specific duration terms for the employment relationship which could

have been agreed upon, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable

intentions of the parties as binding the agency to the terms thereof

forever. See Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05910576

(August 30, 1991). Upon review, we find that complainant was paid at

the maximum in of the pay scale for an EAS Level 23 position pursuant

to the settlement agreement. Complainant's salary level was changed

four years after the settlement based on a change in the agency's

salary structure, which change did not constitute a settlement breach.

Based on the foregoing, the agency's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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:

March 1, 2000

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

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.