Kathleen E. McGrath, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 26, 2000
01a01866 (E.E.O.C. May. 26, 2000)

01a01866

05-26-2000

Kathleen E. McGrath, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Kathleen E. McGrath v. United States Postal Service

01A01866

May 26, 2000

Kathleen E. McGrath, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A01866

) Agency No. 4A-110-0143-99

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

__________________________________ )

DECISION

Complainant filed the instant appeal from the agency's decision dated

November 16, 1999 finding that the agency did not breach the settlement

agreement entered into by the parties on May 28, 1999.<1>

The settlement agreement provided:

Management will make every effort to insure that the work environment at

the Great Neck Post Office is free from any form of "Hostility", be it

"Sexual or Violent". The Zero Tolerance Policy on Sexual Harassment and

Violence in the Work Place shall be strictly enforced. All employees

shall view the U.S. Postal Service video, "Stop Sexual Harassment".

Any supervisor or manager who has not received the training on Sexual

Harassment shall be given said training. Management shall conduct

services talks on "Sexual Harassment" twice weekly for a period of

three months. Management shall post in an area that's frequented by

all employees Poster 21, "USPS Policy on Sexual Harassment", "Racial,

Ethnic an Sexual Orientation Remarks Policy Statement", and the "Joint

Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace".

The parties both stated that the agreement also provided that complainant

would be provided with a parking space. The portion of the agreement

concerning the parking space is faint and difficult to read in the

copies of the agreement in the record. Both parties agree, however,

as to the substance of the parking space provision.

Complainant alleged that the agency breached the agreement. The agency

found that it did not breach the agreement.

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be

codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a)) provides

that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the

parties shall be binding on both parties. If the complainant believes

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

agreement, then the complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the

alleged noncompliance "within 30 days of when the complainant knew

or should have known of the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �

1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement

agreement be specifically implemented or request that the complaint be

reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. Id.

Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant 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

(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th

Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is

a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the

parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing

Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,

1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and

unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the

four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence

of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering

Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).

On appeal complainant alleges that: (1) management failed to make every

effort to insure that the work environment was free from any form of

hostility; (2) two employees did not view the sexual harassment video;

(3) although management gave service talks on sexual harassment,

some persons were disruptive and made light of the subject; and (4)

management did not provide the parking space until October 2, 1999.

Regarding complainant's claim of breach of the portion of the settlement

agreement requiring the agency to "make every effort to insure that the

work environment at the Great Neck Post Office is free from any form of

�Hostility', be it �Sexual or Violent'," the Commission finds that this is

a claim that a subsequent act of discrimination violated the settlement

agreement. Claims that subsequent acts of discrimination violate a

settlement agreement should be processed as a separate complaint rather

than as a breach claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). Complainant indicates

that she has filed a separate complaint on the matter.

The agency has provided documentation showing that it has shown the

video specified in the agreement to its employees. Complainant has

not provided the agency or the Commission with the names of the two

individuals who purportedly did not see the video. Therefore, we find

that complainant failed to show that the agency breached the video

provision of the settlement agreement.

The Commission finds no provision in the agreement forbidding disruptive

behavior during the sexual harassment service talks. Complainant admits

the talks were provided. The record fails to show that the purported

disruptive incidents were of such a nature as to somehow invalidate the

nature of the talks or evidence bad faith by the agency.

Regarding the parking space provision, the Commission finds that the

agreement did not provide a date by which the parking space needed to be

provided. Complainant admits she received the space approximately four

months after the agreement was entered into. The Commission finds that

the four month time frame to assign the parking space, in the absence

of a time limit in the agreement, was not unreasonable, and therefore

did not constitute a breach of the agreement.

The Commission finds that complainant has failed to show that the agency

breached the settlement agreement.

The agency's determination finding that the agency did not breach the

settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

May 26, 2000

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.