0120100761
05-27-2011
Lashonda T. Carrington, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Lashonda T. Carrington,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100761
Agency No. 4G-752-0141-08
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
determination by the Agency dated November 9, 2009, 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 Part-time Flexible Clerk at the Agency’s office in
Desoto, Texas. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful
discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to
initiate the EEO complaint process. On April 3, 2008, Complainant and
the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
Management agrees to implement and adhere to a rotation regarding
Saturdays extra hours. [Complainant] agrees and acknowledges that there
are going to be reasonable exceptions to this schedule. Management
agrees to provide Complainant with ample time in the event of these
exceptional situations.
By letter to the Agency dated September 17, 2009, Complainant alleged that
the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the Agency specifically implement its terms. Complainant alleged that
the Agency failed to adhere to a rotation requiring Part-time Flexible
Clerks to work on Saturdays. Complainant alleged that her supervisor
scheduled her to work late on two Saturdays in a row. Complainant alleged
that she worked late on Saturday, August 8, 2009, and again on Saturday,
August 15, 2009.
In its November 9, 2009, final decision, the Agency found no breach of the
agreement. In particular, the Agency noted that Complainant was absent
from work for an extended period of time before she worked on Saturday,
August 8, 2009. The Agency noted that management had to schedule some
employees to work late two Saturdays in a row during Complainant’s
absence from work because of other employees taking sick leave or
vacations. The Agency further noted that Complainant was scheduled
for vacation from August 17, 2009, through August 22, 2009. The Agency
noted that these were exceptional events and the rotation has continued
as agreed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant has not filed a brief on 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 (Dec. 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
(Aug. 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 (Dec. 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 that Complainant has not established that
the Agency breached the settlement agreement. There is no dispute that
Complainant was absent from work for an extended period of time before
she worked two Saturdays in a row. Management had to schedule some
employees to work late two Saturdays in a row during Complainant’s
absence from work because of other employees taking sick leave or
vacations. The Agency noted that these were exceptional events and the
rotation has continued as agreed. We note that the settlement agreement,
as noted above, expressly stated that there were “going to be reasonable
exceptions to this schedule.” Also, there is no dispute that the Agency
followed a rotation regarding Saturday extra hours in accordance with
the agreement on other occasions. Under these circumstances, we find
that the Agency acted in good faith and substantially complied with
the settlement agreement. As such, the Commission finds that the Agency
correctly determined that it did not breach the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach was proper and is
hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 9-18 (Nov. 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
May 27, 2011
Date
2
0120100761
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120100761