0120170471
01-12-2018
Malcom N.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Malcom N.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120170471
Agency Nos. 1K206003305, 1K204002308
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated October 9, 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
At the time of events giving rise to this compliance action, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler at the Agency's Southern Maryland BMC facility in Capitol Heights, Maryland.
On June 15, 2005, and as supplemented, on July 8, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve two EEO matters. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Management shall accommodate as needed per the medical documentation provided;
(2) If it is determined that counselee requires an ergonomically correct chair for counselee's work station as needed, then [named management official] upon receiving notice of said need, shall order same;
(3) When counselee requests an interpreter, management shall provide same as soon as possible. When management needs to have an official discussion with counselee, management shall provide an interpreter; and
(4) This agreement constitutes a full and final settlement of all issues arising out of the EEO complaints. Any pending grievances or EEO counseling requests or complaints shall be resolved.
By letter to the Agency dated February 5, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Thereafter, by a letter dated March 14, 2016, Complainant indicated that he believed the settlement was breached "in 2014" after Complainant emailed management that he needed an interpreter for Complainant's Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP) papers at the Brentwood Office, but the management official never responded to his email or provided a meeting.
Agency Decision
The Agency concluded that Complainant's breach allegations were untimely, but the Agency considered the breach claim. The Agency found that it had not breached the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that it complied with all of the terms of the Agreement. The record includes the manager's statement that she utilized a certified interpreter when she communicated with Complainant about accommodations and various other job related matters. This appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant asserts that the Agency failed to follow its zero-tolerance policy, failed to call an ambulance for his injuries, never provided the appropriate forms and assistance for his OWCP claims. He also referenced a "deaf settlement agreement," which he says requires interpreters for paperwork on federal OWCP claims. He states that the Agency violated the deaf settlement agreement. He also stated that the manager did not go over his files with him regarding his restrictions and that it took the Agency three months to compensate him after he reinjured his shoulder.
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 note that he refers to a "deaf settlement agreement," but that agreement is not before us in this appeal.
In the instant case, the record shows that the Agency complied with each of the requirements of the Agreement. Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached any provision of the Agreement.
Further, our reading of the record shows that Complainant is raising new claims regarding incidents that occurred after the Agreement was executed and which were not specified in the Agreement. Specifically, he claims that he was not provided a modified job offer after he reinjured his shoulder. He also refers to a 14-day suspension which the Agency rescinded. These claims are not encompassed by the Agreements at issue.
For these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency violated the terms of the 2005 and 2008 settlement agreements. To the extent that Complainant wishes to file new claims alleging disability discrimination, he should contact the EEO office to pursue his claims.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
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 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. 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).
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 12, 2018
__________________
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
0120170471
2
0120170471