01992700
01-12-2000
Mary L. Davis, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mary L. Davis, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01992700
) Agency No. 1H329104595
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On February 2, 1999, complainant timely appealed the January 7, 1999 final
agency decision (FAD).<1> The agency found that it was in compliance
with the terms of the February 10, 1998 settlement agreement between
the complainant and the agency. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402, .504(b);
EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
BACKGROUND
In the breach of settlement letter, the complainant alleged that the
agency breached the settlement agreement by not honoring her doctor's
recommendations. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency
failed to accommodate her medical condition and honor her doctor's
recommendations to change her work schedule. She requested that the
agency implement the settlement's terms. In its January 7, 1999 FAD,
the agency denied the allegation of breach.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
If [the complainant] is unable to perform the full duties of her position,
it is her responsibility to provide acceptable documentation specifying
the limitations/restrictions that she is able to work under.
The settlement also provided that:
If [the complainant] informs her supervisor that she is unable to perform
a specific duty not limited by her existing restrictions, she will not
be required to perform the duty and will be given a reasonable time to
produce documentation to this effect.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) 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 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. Department 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 O
v. United States Postal Service, 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 Engineering Servs. Co.,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, the settlement agreement holds the complainant
responsible for providing acceptable documentation about her work
limitations and restrictions. The complainant did provide some
documentation to the agency about her work hours. Specifically, she
submitted a letter from her doctor.
In this September 25, 1998 letter, the doctor identified the complainant's
limitations and restrictions. He stated that she should not work (1)
more than forty hours a week, (2) more than eight hours a day, and (3)
more than five consecutive days. Although the doctor did not restrict
her work schedule to 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., he strongly recommended
that she work this schedule to allow for proper sleep and recuperation.
However, the agency did not believe the September 25, 1998 doctor's
note was acceptable. Accordingly, the agency asked the complainant for
additional information to support her request for the shift change.
The complainant did not supply this information to the medical unit.
As a result, the agency did not honor her doctor's recommendation.
According to the plain meaning and clear intent of the settlement
agreement, the complainant must provide acceptable documentation
that she could not perform a specific duty outside of her existing
restrictions. The Commission finds that the complainant did not
provide the acceptable documentation to support her request for a shift
change. The letter from her doctor did not provide any explanation
as to how this shift would accommodate her medical needs or why the
complainant could no longer work her 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. schedule.
Without additional information, the complainant has failed to provide
acceptable documentation. Therefore, the agency did not violate the
subject settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
The agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1099)
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. All requests and arguments must be submitted to
the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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).
In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall
be deemed filed on the date it is received by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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 (S1199)
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 (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
01/12/00 ____________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant1On November 9, 1999,
revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal sector complaint
process went into effect. These regulations apply to all Federal
sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised
regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable,
in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,
may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.