0120162476
12-30-2016
Lyman D,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lyman D,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162476
Agency No. 1F957007315
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 30, 2016, 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
On January 7, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2a) The Postal Service agrees to place [Complainant] into Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic Position No. 71469190 starting on January 09, 2016...located at the Sacramento P&DC;
(2b) [Complainant] understands that as a Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic he is required to pass all of the required training for a Maintenance Mechanic within the time allowed per the applicable CBA and Article 38 Maintenance Craft;
(2c) Counselee understands that he will be required to complete Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic training, included but not limited to: (1) 7 modules of Basic Electricity, (2) Industrial Electrical Service pre-requisite training and (3) Industrial Electrical Service training in Norman, Oklahoma. Counselee understands he will be required to pass each level of training before he can move forward to the next level of training;
(2d) Per Article 38.5.C paragraphs 3 and 4 Maintenance Craft, Counselee understands his promotion is contingent upon satisfactory completion of all required training and Counselee will have one (1) year form the date detailed to complete the training;
(2g) [Complainant] understands as a Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic, he will be held to the same terms and conditions of any other United States Postal Service Maintenance Mechanic regarding all conditions of employment and under the provisions of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and Article 38 Maintenance Craft; and
(4) It is agreed that the terms of this Settlement Agreement constitutes the full and complete settlement between the parties and that they acknowledge that they have read and understood the terms of the Settlement Agreement and are entering into it knowingly and voluntarily.
Complainant was offered the training, but failed one component of the training test. On May 25, 2016, the Agency notified Complainant that he would be removed from the Postal Service effective "COB July 1, 2016." The stated reason for the proposed removal was that Complainant "failed to successfully qualify for the Maintenance Mechanic position by failing the IES-VLR training course." The notice stated that Complainant's position was contingent on satisfactory completion of training and also stated that the failure to qualify for the position disqualified him for employment as there is no Maintenance Mechanic position for him to "occupy" or retreat to.
Two other employees failed the qualifying course and were returned to their previous Maintenance positions. Complainant left the mail handler craft and was informed that he could not return to his former position as a mail handler and that his former position in the mail handler craft had been posted and filled. The record shows that Complainant initiated pre-complaint counseling to challenge the Agency's action as a separate claim of reprisal and hostile work environment based on disability.
In addition, by letter to the Agency dated May 31, 2016, Complainant also alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the issuance of the Notice of Removal violated the EEO Settlement Agreement because he asserts that the Agreement allowed him one year to pass the training and it had only been four months.
The Agency determined that the settlement agreement had not been breached. The Agency reasoned that it complied because it provided Complainant an opportunity to become a Maintenance Mechanic, but he failed to qualify for the Maintenance Mechanic position. In finding no breach, the Agency also reasoned that, since Complainant was not a maintenance employee prior to receiving the position through the EEO process, he could not be returned to a previous Mechanic occupational group and level and is treated as an entry level employee.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant asserts that the Agreement provided him a year to complete the training. The Agency disputes that the Agreement provided a year and states that the Agreement required the successful completion of the training within a year.
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 (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. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 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 (December 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).
We find that the Agreement is valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement expressly stated that the understanding of the parties that Complainant is required to complete the training and pass "each level of training before he can move forward to the next level of training" required for a Maintenance Mechanic within the time allowed per the applicable CBA and Article 38 Maintenance Craft. The Agreement permitted one year to complete the training. The Agency provided the training. The Agreement did not state that if he failed, he would have a year to pass the training. It is not our role to modify the terms of the Agreement. Moreover, in this case, the Agreement provided that both parties acknowledged that thy understood the terms of the Agreement and entered the Agreement knowingly.
We find, therefore, that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency breached the terms of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Letter of Determination, finding no breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 tends 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 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. The requests 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 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 (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
December 30, 3016
__________________
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
0120162476
2
0120162476