Luciano B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 11, 2018

0120172347 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 11, 2018)

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