Kyle S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 3, 20160120151443 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 3, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kyle S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120151443 Agency No. 4C451005114 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency, dated January 8, 2015, 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 was employed at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center in Columbus, Ohio. As best we can determine from the limited record before us, a dispute arose between Complainant and his supervisor, S1, concerning S1’s supervisory techniques and particularly S1’s problematic interactions with another supervisor, S2. Apparently believing that, as a result of this dispute, the Agency had subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant initiated the EEO complaint process. On July 29, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: 1. [S1] agrees that issues with [Complainant] will be discussed off the floor. 2. [Complainant] agrees that if he observes [S1] acting unprofessionally he will notify [MDO, the manager of distribution operations]. 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. 0120151443 2 3. [S1] agrees to participate in the USPS Refresher Symposium SDO/MDO training July 26-Sept 15, 2014. 4. [Complainant] will follow all official instructions given by [S1] unless they are safety concerns. 5. [S1] within 60 days will cross train with [S2]. 6. [Complainant] will supervise [S1]’s unit while she is cross training. By letter to the Agency dated October 30, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that his EEO complaint be reinstated. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to comply with Paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement. In its January 8, 2015 FAD, the Agency concluded that it had not breach the settlement agreement. From that FAD, Complainant brings the instant appeal. 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, Complainant contends that the Agency has failed to perform its obligations under Paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement regarding “cross train[ing].” However, the Agency has adduced affidavit testimony of MDO showing that S1 and S2 received the training in question on November 21, 2014, Complainant has adduced no contradictory evidence. We find that the Agency has proven that it substantially performed its obligations under the settlement agreement. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Agency’s final decision. 0120151443 3 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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), 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. The requests 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 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. 0120151443 4 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 June 3, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation