Herbert M.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 11, 2018

0120172356 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 11, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Herbert M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172356

Agency No. 4K-300-0043-16

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 30, 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

Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s North Atlanta Post Office in Atlanta,
Georgia. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant
contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On January 28,
2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) [Complainant] will be compensated for the time he was in an LWOP status during
September 2015 and for December 4, 2015 through January 8, 2016.

(2) [Complainant] will submit a request for a 271g special six-day count to
management and it will then be submitted to the district for processing.

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.
0120172356

2
(3) [Complainant] will be granted a lump sum payment of $500.00 (five hundred) for
compensatory damages and [Complainant] will be responsible for paying the
taxes on it.

By letter to the Agency dated April 24, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach
of provision (1) of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically
implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency did not award him all of
the compensation for the dates that he was in leave without pay status.

In its May 30, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that Complainant had received net back pay in
the amount of $4,914.21, in accordance with provision (1) and that this amount represented the
full settlement of his claim.

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. Dept. 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. Dept. 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 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
Engineering Services Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

In the instant case, the terms of provision (1) clearly stated that Complainant would be
compensated for time he spent in leave-without-pay status during pay periods 20, 21, 26, and 27
of 2015 and pay period 1 of 2016. According to the back-pay report, Complainant was charged a
total of 240 hours of leave without pay, for which he was paid a gross total of $8,100.02. On
April 11, 2016, after all of Complainant’s deductions were taken out, the Agency issued him a
check in the amount of $4,914.21, which he signed and cashed on April 21, 2016. Apart from
his own assertions, Complainant has not presented any documents or testimony supporting his
contention that the January 28, 2016 settlement agreement had been breached. He even
acknowledged in the first paragraph of his June 26, 2017 appeal statement that he was “in
agreement with the amount that he received, $4,914.21.”

0120172356

3
CONCLUSION

Based upon a review of the record and for the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
decision that it was in full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement dated January
28, 2016.

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).

0120172356

4
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 11, 2018
Date