Laurie E. Meyer, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 16, 1999
01972499 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 16, 1999)

01972499

11-16-1999

Laurie E. Meyer, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Laurie E. Meyer, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01972499

) Agency No. 4-H-1631-93

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

_________________________________)

DECISION

Appellant filed the instant appeal from the agency's December 31,

1996 decision finding that the agency did not breach the settlement

agreement entered into by the parties on January 10, 1994. The settlement

agreement provided:

The Postal Service acknowledges the complainant has an accepted

job related condition by OWCP. The Postal Service will honor her

physician's recommendations to work in the safest manner possible.<1>

The complainant has the right to continue to sign the overtime desired

list and work overtime in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of

the National Agreement. The complainant will be compensated overtime pay

for the period of September 18, 1992 thru January 23, 1993 in accordance

with the provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual.

In its decision, the agency found that appellant had alleged that the

agency breached the agreement by requiring her to back her vehicle

directly adjacent to grass; which would compel her to work out of the

grass or in the grass; which could be harmful to her; and which violated

her physician's guidelines. The agency determined that: (1) appellant

had been instructed to back into parking spaces when she was driving a

van which has a side door; (2) the instructions that carriers back into

parking spaces was revised for appellant "by enforcing these instructions

only when she drives a van;"<2> and (3) the instructions of appellant's

physician simply stated that appellant must carry an anti-allergy kit

and not to work over dirty or grassy areas. The agency concluded that

it had not breached the agreement.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a) provides that any settlement

agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be

binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency

has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the

complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance

"within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of

the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant

may request that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically

implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated for further

processing from the point processing ceased. Id.

Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency

and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not

some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795

(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th

Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is

a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the

parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing

Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,

1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and

unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the

four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence

of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering

Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).

The Commission notes that appellant has not challenged the agency's

framing of the breach allegation. Moreover, appellant has not challenged

the agency's assertion that she was only required to back into a parking

space when using a van with a side door. Appellant has provided a copy

of a letter dated June 20, 1996, from a physician stating that appellant

should not "back up her vehicle in a grassy area and work from it because

of the increased risk of being stung by bees . . ." Appellant has not

shown that the agency violated her physician's recommendations to work

in the �safest manner possible� pursuant to the terms of the settlement

agreement. The circumstances of appellant's work as described by the

agency, and not contested on appeal by appellant, are different than the

circumstances described by the physician in the June 20, 1996 letter.

The Commission finds that appellant has failed to show that the agency

breached the settlement agreement. The Commission notes that appellant

filed an EEO complaint on the same matter which was considered in Meyer

v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01972553 (April 6, 1998).

The agency's decision finding that the agency did not breach the

settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of

Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,

the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:

November 16, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

1 A review of the record reflects that appellant's physician determined

that appellant suffers from an allergy to bee stings that could be

�life threatening.�

2 The record reflects that the agency has a policy that agency carriers

are instructed to back into parking spaces for safety reasons, after

numerous accidents. The agency noted that if a van has a side door,

�it does not matter if [appellant] backs into a spot because any grassy

area would not affect her while working out of the side of [the] van.�