Luciano B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 11, 20180120172347 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 11, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Luciano B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120172347 Agency No. 4J-530-0042-15 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 23, 2017, 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 Mail Handler at the Post Office in Barrington, Illinois. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On April 7, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: (1) [Complainant] will not be supervised by [Supervisor]; [Complainant] will be supervised by the Postmaster or his designee, not [Supervisor]. By letter to the Agency dated August 21, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Supervisor appeared at the facility 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. 0120172347 2 unannounced during the week of July 20, 2015, when the Postmaster was on vacation. The Supervisor had been asked by the Postmaster to serve as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) while the Postmaster was on leave. Complainant contended that during the week that the Supervisor served as the OIC, she was supervising the entire facility, including Complainant. Complainant further contended that the Supervisor acted in a supervisory capacity over him when she relayed instructions to him regarding a parcel delivery through an acting 204B supervisor. In its May 23, 2017 FAD, the Agency determined that since the Supervisor did not directly supervise Complainant in the formal sense while she served as the OIC, and since she did not interact directly with Complainant during that time, it did not breach the April 7, 2015 settlement 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. Department of Defense, 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. Dept. 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 Service, 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 Engineering Services. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). In the instant case, the sole provision of the settlement agreement specifically stated that Complainant would not be supervised by the Supervisor. The plain meaning of word “supervise,” as understood by the Supervisor and the Postmaster, was that the Supervisor would not be formally placed in a formal position of authority directly over him in the facility’s organizational structure. This term was adhered to. Moreover, the Supervisor’s service as OIC was temporary, and had ended when the Postmaster returned from leave. We also note that while the Supervisor was serving as OIC, she took great care not to interact directly with Complainant, except on one occasion to briefly discuss a matter concerning a delivery route. The Supervisor instead communicated indirectly with Complainant through an Acting 204B supervisor. To the extent that there was a breach, it resulted in nothing more than de minimus harm, which neither undermines the settlement agreement’s purpose or effect nor supports Complainant’s contention that the Agency breached the agreement. See e.g. Wilbur R. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171545 (Aug. 23, 2017). 0120172347 3 CONCLUSION Based on the record and for the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s FAD finding that it did not breach the settlement agreement that it entered into with Complainant on April 7, 2015. 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. 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). 0120172347 4 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. 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 January 11, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation