Ilene M. Shell, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 7, 2009
0120092210 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2009)

0120092210

08-07-2009

Ilene M. Shell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Ilene M. Shell,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120092210

Agency No. 4F-900-0223-05

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency

decision, dated March 13, 2009, finding that it was in compliance with

the terms of the September 19, 2007 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.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(3) In full settlement of all claims by complainant against [the

agency], [the agency] shall pay complainant the lump sum of $13,000.00

(thirteen thousand dollar). This amount represents non-wage compensatory

damages to complainant.

. . .

(11) This Agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement

between the Parties and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements

or understandings between the parties pertaining to the subject matter

hereof. There are no oral side agreements or understandings. No other

promises or agreements shall be binding unless signed by the Parties.

By letter to the agency dated January 23, 2009, 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 find her a position in San Bernardino

County, near her residence, as she was "verbally told."

In its March 13, 2009 decision, the agency concluded that the settlement

agreement was not breached. According to the agency, complainant was

paid $13,000.00 as required, but that the agreement did not provide

for obtaining complainant a position. While the agency admits that

locating a position for complainant was discussed during the settlement

conferences, "the agency ultimately rejected that option". The express

terms of the agreement, noted the agency, clearly state that there are

no oral side agreements.

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).

In the instant case, the settlement agreement requires the agency to

pay complainant $13,000.00.

The record contains a copy of a check showing that such payment was

made on September 26, 2007. Although complainant contends that the

agency was also obligated to locate a job for her, pursuant to an oral

agreement made at the time of the settlement, the Commission disagrees.

If complainant sought to obtain a position near her residence, as part of

the agreement, she should have had her intentions reduced to writing.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

August 7, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120092210

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120092210