0120142220
04-06-2016
Leonarda S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Leonarda S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142220
Agency No. 1G711001613
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's 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 Modified Mail Processing Clerk (PS-06) at the Agency's Shreveport Processing and Distribution Center ("PDC") in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Complainant sustained an on the job lumbar injury in 2008, qualifying her for a Modified Assignment (Limited Duty). Complainant alleges that she regularly worked overtime hours while on Modified Assignment since 2011. In July 2013, Complainant's second line supervisor, the Manager of Distribution Operations ("S2"), informed her that she was not authorized to work overtime because it violated the restrictions identified by Complainant's doctor. Specifically, S2 was referring to Complainant's PS Form 2499 ("Offer of Modified Assignment") which provides the specific terms and limitations of an employee's duties, and is based on a Department of Labor C-17 Form completed by an employee's doctor.
Along with denying Complainant overtime, S2 changed her start time from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On November 5, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement ("the Agreement") to resolve the matter. The Agreement provided:
Complainant's hours of duty will be changed to [5:00 PM to 1:30 AM] effective November 6, 2013. S1 will provide [a] letter to Complainant's physician inquiring [about the] ability for Complainant to work overtime. Upon receipt of Complainant's CA-17 stating overtime [is] possible, Complainant's supervisor ("S1") will produce a revised PS Form 2499 indicating 8 hour plus overtime.
On November 14, 2013, Complainant brought a blank C-17, as well as S1's written request, per the agreement, for medical confirmation that Complainant's could work overtime to her doctor. He did not fill out the C-17, but did write a "Progress Report" on letterhead, stating Complainant "has, in the past up to date, been capable of... working overtime when necessary or available" and that he saw "no reason why she could not continue to work overtime and continue the restrictions as they have been laid out for some time in the past." Complainant presented both the incomplete C-17 and the letter to S1 and S2, but they would not accept them for purposes of issuing a revised PS Form 2499.
By letter to the Agency dated November 20, 2013, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the Agreement when S1 and S2 failed to provide her with a revised PS Form 2499 so she could work overtime, and requested the Agency's specific performance of this term.
On April 29, 2014, the Agency issued a Letter of Determination finding that pursuant to the ordinary rules of contract construction, it had not breached of the Agreement.
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. United States 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., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, the plain meaning of the language in the Agreement makes clear that Complainant's receipt of the revised PS Form 2499 is contingent on Complainant first providing a completed CA-17 confirming she is medically able to work overtime. The record reveals that Complainant did not do this. Therefore, the Agency was not in breach when S1 would not provide Complainant with revised PS Form 2499 that stated she could work eight hours plus overtime.
Complainant raises additional claims on appeal by suggesting that the Agency breached the Agreement as retaliation for her prior EEO complaints; and alleging ongoing violations of the Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This Commission has held that a complaint which alleges reprisal or further discrimination is to be processed as a separate complaint and not as a breach of settlement claim. See Bindal v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900225 (August 9, 1990); 29 C.F.R. 1614.504(c). Therefore, if she has not already done so, we advise Complainant to contact an EEO Counselor regarding these claims if he wishes to pursue them further.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach of the Agreement is AFFIRMED.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION
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), 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, 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
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL
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
April 6, 2016
__________________
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
0120142220
5
0120142220