0120180182
02-23-2018
Jacinto Q,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jacinto Q,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120180182
Agency No. 4G-720-0060-16
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated September 1, 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 Postmaster at the Agency's facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On August 4, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Management Official 1] agrees that he will contact each District Manager within the Southern Area to ascertain and detail availability at Level 21 or higher. In addition, [Management Official 1] will agree to contact the Southern Area Office for the same detail availability. I2 will provide follow-up within one week. In addition, [Management Officials 1 and 2] will agree to submit [Complainant's] name for [Managerial Leadership Program or] MLP.
[Management Official 2] will also agree to assist [Complainant] with his IDP development to insure that his IDP reflects his request to participate in MLP for further development into CSP and potentially ALP.
By email to the Agency dated August 16, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. We note that the email was addressed to Management Official 1, Management Official 2, and Mediation Official. The record indicated that the Mediation Official forwarded the email to an EEO Specialist on August 17, 2016. The same day, the EEO Specialist in turn forwarded the email to the EEO Manager. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Management Officials had no intention of fulfilling the promises to facilitate his career development. Although it appeared that the settlement agreement was in the right direction, Complainant argued that it represented a return to the status quo. He argued that development opportunities have been blocked and he was denied opportunities that would have better positioned him for career advancement. In sum, Complainant claimed that the Management Officials have continued their pattern of aggressive mistreatment towards him.
In its September 1, 2017 FAD, the Agency concluded that it did not breach the settlement agreement. The Agency held that Complainant had been provided with information regarding detail opportunities by Management Official 1. As a result, the Agency assigned Complainant to a detail to a Level 24 position from October - December 2016. In addition, Management Official 2 submitted Complainant's name for MLP training. As a result, Complainant was scheduled for MLP training on April 24-28, 2017 and June 25-29, 2017. Based on the evidence, the Agency concluded that it had not breached the settlement agreement.
This appeal followed. Complainant asserted on appeal that his understanding was that the settlement agreement was to provide him with detail opportunities and provided with a detail offer by Management Official 1. He believed that the detail would be developmental in nature. He asserted that he had performed successfully for years as a Level 24 Postmaster, prior to the level of his current duty assignment noting his position had been reduced after removal of the mail processing operation in his instillation. Therefore, he believed that a temporary assignment to another level 24 Postmaster position would not assist him in his career development and that this was known to Management Officials 1 and 2. Complainant asserted that, due to being outnumbered by Agency officials, this was not memorialized in the settlement agreement. Complainant also believed that he was to be offered true developmental assignments. He confirmed that he was ultimately enrolled in the MLP training in April and June 2017.3
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, we note that the settlement agreement provided for Management Official 1 to give Complainant a list of detail opportunities at "level 21 or higher" in the Southern Area. Complainant argued that he sought a detail to a higher level than the level 24. However, a review of the settlement agreement shows that the parties agreed to the "level 21 or higher". Based on a review of the record, we find that Management Official 1 complied with the settlement agreement by providing Complainant with a list of detail opportunities. In turn, Complainant accepted a detail assignment to level 24. He served in the detail assignment from October to December 2016. Complainant was not satisfied with the experience of the detail provided. However, such a claim is irrelevant as to whether the Agency complied with the term of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we find that the Agency has complied with this provision of the settlement agreement.
As to the second provision, the record shows that Management Official 2 submitted Complainant's name for the MLP training. Complainant was provided with the training in April and June 2017. Therefore, we determined that the Agency has complied with this term of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on our review of the record, we AFFIRM the Agency's decision 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 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
February 23, 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 It appears that "I" refers to Management Official 1.
3 We note that Complainant stated that this occurred in 2016. However, a review of the complaint file indicated that Complainant was scheduled for training in 2017, not 2016.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120180182
5
0120180182