Lamar D.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 28, 2019

2019002768 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 28, 2019)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Lamar D.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 2019002768

Agency No. 4K-280-0105-18

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated February 8, 2019, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of a June 21, 2018 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a
matter which had been pursued in the EEO process. The June 21, 2018 settlement agreement
provided, in pertinent part, that:

“[Postmaster] has completed a CA 17 today and given it to [Complainant].
[Complainant] will have his doctor complete the medical restrictions on the CA
17. [Complainant] will provide the CA 17 to [Postmaster]. [Postmaster] will
ensure the 2499 is completed and sent to Injury Comp. in a timely manner.2

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 CA 17 is an abbreviation for Form CA-17 “Duty Status Report.”
2019002768

2
[Complainant] will attend the career conference on July 14, 2018 in Charlotte.
[Agency official] signed a 3971 today approving [Complainant’s] leave for
7/14/18.

If [Complainant] attends the 7/14/18 career conference then [Postmaster] will
offer [Complainant] details as available between 7/14/18 and 12/31/2018.

[Postmaster] will ensure her replacement at Charlotte Post Office will carry out
[Postmaster’s] part of the settlement once she leaves.”

By letter to the Agency dated January 5, 2019, Complainant alleged breach, claiming that the
Agency did not offer him a single detail job during the six months covered by the settlement
agreement and, “I would still like the opportunity in Detail or Operations; however my
perception of this situation at this point is that upper management thinks that this entire EEO is a
joke and nothing will be offered to me as was agreed upon.” Furthermore, Complainant
requested $150,000 for the breach of the subject settlement agreement.

In its February 8, 2019 final decision, the Agency found no breach of the instant settlement
agreement. According to the Agency, the Postmaster maintained that on July 14, 2018,
Complainant attended the career conference and she offered him a detail assignment opportunity
on September 18, 2018, to serve as an Acting Supervisor, Customer Services (204B) in a
Charlotte, North Carolina station. However, Complainant declined the offer. The Postmaster
noted that Complainant stated that the assignment did not “work for him” and that he instead
preferred a 204B assignment in the Safety Office. The Postmaster stated that she informed
Complainant that she could not offer a detail assignment to the Safety Office as that unit was not
under her area of responsibility. The Postmaster in Charlotte confirms that he approved
Complainant’s postmaster offering him the 204B detail assignment.

The instant appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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).
2019002768

3
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).

Here, we conclude that the relevant portion of the settlement agreement provided that if
Complainant attended the July 14, 2018 career conference, it would offer him details “as
available between 7/14/18 and 12/31/2018 [emphasis added].” The record contains a copy of the
Postmaster’s affidavit dated January 28, 2019, in which she states that on September 18, 2018, “I
personally offered [Complainant] a detail assignment opportunity to serve as an Acting
Supervisor (204B) in a Charlotte NC stations/branches. [Complainant] declined the offer. He
shared with me that the hours of the assignment did not work for him and he would prefer to
serve as a 204B in the Safety Office. I told [Complainant] I could not offer him a detail
assignment opportunity to the Safety Office as that office was not under my area of
responsibility and in another functional area (Human Resources).”

The record also contains a copy of an affidavit from the Postmaster of Charlotte, North Carolina
(“Postmaster 2”), dated January 24, 2019, which confirms that he approved the offer of the detail
to Complainant, but Complainant declined it.

We concur with the Agency that the settlement agreement does not address which detail
assignment Complainant can select, nor does it address payment of $150,000. We therefore
determine that the Agency did not breach the instant settlement agreement. If Complainant had
wanted the Postmaster to offer him a detail assignment as an Acting Supervisor in the Safety
Office and a payment of $150,000, he should have included it as part of the subject settlement
agreement. See Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01851903
(March 4, 1987).

The Agency’s final decision finding no breach of the instant settlement 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.
2019002768

4
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.
2019002768

5
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

August 28, 2019
Date