0120170379
01-04-2018
Kelvin J.,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
Kelvin J.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120170379
Agency No. 4K300029913
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated October 3, 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 complaint, Complainant worked as a Carrier at the Agency's facility in Norcross, Georgia.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On December 20, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant's] medical restrictions on file will be honored and [he] will not be instructed or expected to work outside [his] medical restrictions.
(2) [Complainant] will provide updated documentation listing his medical restrictions every thirty (30) days unless the next appointment is otherwise annotated by his physicians on the documentation.
(3) The Postal service will pay [Complainant] a lump sum of One Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($1000.00) for compensatory damages. The Postal Service will not withhold any taxes from this payment. However, the Postal Service shall report to the Internal Revenue Service the amount paid as required by law. The determination of any tax liability, if any, is a matter solely between [Complainant] and the tax authorities.
On August 22, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Complainant alleged that on August 4, 2016, nearly three years after the agreement was signed, he was given extra mail to deliver for another route, in addition to his own route.2
In its October 3, 2016 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency asserted, without contradiction from Complainant, that the money owed under the agreement had been paid. It also found that neither the Postmaster nor the Supervisor involved had received any documentation of Complainant's medical restrictions or had any other knowledge of the restrictions, so did not assign work outside any known restrictions. Moreover, on the date in question, the Agency stated Complainant was not required to work overtime.
The instant 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, we find the agreement valid and binding.
Here, Complainant alleges he was told to carry part of another route on August 4, 2016, for thirty minutes. Despite the extra work, Complainant did not work more than 8 hours that day. Both the Supervisor and Postmaster stated that they did not require Complainant to work overtime on the day in question, even though he did not complete the assigned work. Complainant did not provide any evidence that he had submitted medical documentation regarding his limitations to the Supervisor or Postmaster although the settlement agreement required him to do so every 30 days. The agreement does not specifically state that Complainant can only work 8 hour days. Additionally, we note that the signature on the 2013 settlement agreement was not that of either the Supervisor or Postmaster.
We are not convinced that the Agency breached the settlement agreement given that the Supervisor and the Postmaster did not know Complainant's medical restrictions although he was responsible under the agreement with providing monthly updated documentation, and they did not order him to work overtime. 3
The Agency's determination that it was not in breach of the agreement is AFFIRMED.
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
January 4, 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 Complainant sought the reinstatement of his underlying complaint. However, were that done, he would have to return all monies he received under the settlement agreement.
3 To the extent that Complainant raised an issue related to a letter of warning he received, that matter should be addressed in a separate EEO complaint. If it has not already accepted this claim as a separate complaint, the Agency should consider Complainant's pre-complaint counseling for the instant breach claim as his initial counseling contact for a complaint concerning the letter of warning.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120170379