Kathy J. Stallbaumer, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 13, 2009
0120083875 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 13, 2009)

0120083875

01-13-2009

Kathy J. Stallbaumer, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Kathy J. Stallbaumer,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083875

Agency No. 4E680002307

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated August 11, 2008, finding that it

was in compliance with the terms of the February 9, 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:

(1) The local MOU regarding the presence on the work room floor will

be enforced through the use of the upstairs room as a location for off

duty workers to wait.

(2) Both parties will attempt to be polite and direct in expressing

their concerns to each other.

(3) Efforts will be made to gather information at the beginning of

each new work day to set expectations for that day. The parties will

openly share their concerns or expectations for the coming day.

(4) The expectations for the Sabetha Post Office are that all forms

will be filled out by all employees in a similar manner, including form

3996.

(5) No later than April 10, 2007, the parties will have a conversation

to check on their views of the progress they are making and possibly

identify other communication tools to use.

By letter to the agency dated July 14, 2008, complainant alleged that the

agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the

agency reinstate her complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged that

an identified coworker sits in the office after finishing his route and

comes in up to 30 minutes before his clock time; that she did not feel

she was being treated with dignity and respect because she was expected

to finish her route faster than ever; and when she was told not to fill

out a Form-3996.

In its August 11, 2008 FAD, the agency concluded it was not in breach

of the agreement. The agency solicited a written statement from the

Postmaster in response to complainant's breach allegations which stated

that the identified coworker was not on the work room floor when not

on duty and sometimes the Postmaster has to ask him questions. The

Postmaster stated he treats all the carriers with dignity and respect

and that complainant's route times are determined by route inspections.

With respect to the Form-3996, the Postmaster admitted he told complainant

not to fill out the form, and then realized the error. The form is now

filled out for all overtime. The agency noted that on March 27, 2008,

a manager of Postal Operations and a State Steward visited the facility

where complainant worked and spoke with employees. Old and new issues

were discussed and a follow up meeting was held.

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 Commission finds inadequate evidence to support

complainant's claim that the agency has breached any of the terms of

the settlement agreement. Although complainant was told not to fill

out a form one time, the matter was corrected and complainant has not

explained how she was harmed by such. The agency's determination of no

breach is 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

January 13, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120083875

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120083875