0120162799
03-13-2018
Iliana S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Iliana S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162799
Agency Nos. 1K276002711; 1K271002215
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated August 25, 2016, 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 compliance action, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler at the Agency's Raleigh Processing and Distribution Center facility in Raleigh, North Carolina.
On September 15, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the pending EEO matter 1K-276-0027-11. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] is requesting to have her Letter of Warning #RANC11FAJ054 expunged from her file as a means of resolution;
(2) Management officials [named] agreed to have the above complaint #RANC11FAJ054 [Warning] removed or expunged from [Complainant's] file, as a means of final settlement.
By letter to the Agency dated March 30, 2016, Complainant alleged breach. In addition, she stated that she wanted to amend another pending EEO complaint 1K-271-0022-15 to include a breach allegation. In her June 30, 2016 affidavit, which the Agency requested of her, she identified the number of the settlement agreement that was breached as pertaining to EEO Complaint 1K-276-0027-11. She claimed that the breach occurred on August 29, 2015. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to expunge the Letter of Warning. Complainant requested that her complaint 1K-276-0027-11 be reinstated.
Agency Decision
Initially, the Agency noted that Complainant failed to provide a copy of the settlement agreement that she claimed was breached. The original hard copy of the complaint file was no longer available. The Agency stated that the settlement agreement page 2 was missing from its record.
With regard to the Agreement pertinent to 1K-276-0027-11, the Agency found that Complainant's breach claim was untimely, because she did not raise the allegation of the breach until March 30, 2016, which was well beyond 30 days after August 29, 2015, when she alleged breach occurred. The Agency disputed Complainant's claim that the Agreement required that the Agency not allow a named supervisor to supervise Complainant.
Next, the Agency concluded, assuming her claim was timely, that it had not breached the Agreement. The Agency stated that its review of the records indicated the Letter of Warning, issued to Complainant on June 12, 2011, was no longer in Complainant's official files.
Regarding the second referenced settlement breach pertaining to the second complaint, the Agency stated that a settlement agreement was never reached to resolve Complainant's EEO Complaint 1K-271-0022-15. Therefore, no breach had occurred. This appeal followed.
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 portion of the record of the Settlement Agreement that was available to us for review only required the expungement of the Letter of Warning. The record shows that the Agency expunged the Letter of Warning. Consequently, we find that Complainant failed to prove her claim regarding the Letter of Warning. In addition, we find that Complainant failed to show that the parties entered an Agreement that precluded the Agency from assigning her to the supervision of the named official.
Finally, to the extent that Complainant is raising alleged discrimination regarding incidents that occurred after the signing of the 2011 Agreement, she should raise those claims with the Agency, if they are not already encompassed by her other pending complaint.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's August 25, 2016 Determination finding no breach.
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 tends 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
March 13, 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
0120162799
4
0120162799