0120161082
06-28-2016
Martina S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Martina S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161082
Agency No. 4K230018013
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated December 18, 2015, 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 an Unassigned City Carrier at the Agency's City Delivery Office in Richmond, Virginia.
On October 15, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement ("the Agreement") to resolve a complaint she had raised with the Agency's EEO Office (Agency Case No. 4K230018013). In relevant part, the Agreement provided:
Management agrees that while [Complainant] is being assigned to fixed days by Management, she will have Saturday as her scheduled day off effective Saturday, October 19, 2013.
By letter to the Agency dated November 21, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the Agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on October 23, 2015, the Station Manager ("SM") offered her a Modified Job Assignment (Limited Duty) as a City Carrier that did not list Saturday as her day off.
SM offered Complainant the Modified Job Assignment because he understood it to be within her work restrictions, which arose due to an on the job injury. The Agency argues that no breach occurred because the Agreement pertained only to assignments with fixed schedules. The Modified Job Assignment, like all City Carrier positions, was unassigned, meaning schedules varied based on the Agency's needs. Complainant declined the offer because of the alleged breach and because it was outside of her medical restrictions.
In its December 18, 2015 FAD, the Agency concluded that no breach occurred.
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 (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) Complainant v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120140143 (Feb. 20, 2014).
Where an individual bargains for a position, without any specific terms as to the length of service, the Commission has held that it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of the parties to include employment in that exact position forever. Winkles v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A60724 (May 2, 2006); Carter v. United Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A60569 (May 25, 2006); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). Further, the Commission has held that in the absence of a specific time frame in a settlement agreement, it is interpreted to be for a reasonable amount of time. Parker v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05910576 (Aug. 29, 1991) (agreement that did not specify length of service for position to which complainant was promoted was not breached by the temporary detail of complainant two years after the execution of the settlement agreement); Gomez v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05930921 (Feb. 10, 1994).
A thorough review of the record provides no indication that the Agency breached the Agreement. Moreover, on appeal, Complainant references an offer letter she received from SM dated December 22, 2015, which, despite the FAD, offered Complainant the same Modified Job Assignment but with Saturdays listed as her scheduled day off. Even if the Agency was in breach, SM resolved Complainant's allegation by offering Saturdays off.
Further, Complainant appears to withdraw her claim on appeal "because of significant developments that have occurred since Complainant filed her breach complaint." One such development occurred on January 15, 2016, when the Department of Labor's Office of Workers Compensation ("OWCP") determined that the Modified Job Assignment SM offered Complainant included duties outside of her medical restrictions and paid Complainant back pay from October 23, 2015. Since then, the Agency has not provided Complainant with an offer for a position within her restrictions. Complainant acknowledges that without an offer, she lacks a schedule and cannot state a breach claim. However, instead of formally withdrawing her claim, Complainant requests that we place her claim in abeyance.
We deny Complainant's request because, as she acknowledges on appeal, she is unable to state a claim of breach. If Complainant believes the Agency has breached the Agreement on a future date, she may pursue a new breach claim per our regulations and the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's finding of no breach is AFFIRMED.
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 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), 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
June 28, 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
0120161082
2
0120161082