Mckenzie L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 18, 20180120172503 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 18, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mckenzie L.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120172503 Agency No. 4F900008915 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated June 6, 2017, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. For the reasons provided herein, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked for the Agency’s postal facility in Los Angeles, California. On April 18, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter and other matters. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: THIRD: Mutual Promises. 1. Complainant agrees to accept the following monetary payment (the "Payment") as the entire amount due to Complainant from Postal Service: 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. 0120172503 2 (a) Postal Service agrees to pay Complainant . . . back pay ("wages") for dates she did not work between November 26, 2014 and May 11, 2015 (the "Back Pay Period"). . . . . (c) Postal Service will provide to Complainant any forms necessary to process the above referenced terms within two weeks of the receipt of the fully executed Agreement. The Postal Service will make all reasonable efforts to make payment within approximately eight weeks after Complainant submits the properly completed forms necessary to process these terms to . . . Manager, Labor Relations, at 7001 S Central Ave, Los Angeles CA, 90052. Complainant agrees to submit the properly completed forms necessary to process the above referenced terms within two weeks of receipt. Complainant further agrees to timely, within no more than two weeks of a request, provide any additional information deemed necessary to complete the necessary forms, should any additional information be requested by [Manager, Labor Relations]. This amount will be subject to all usual and customary income tax and other withholdings, and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. By letter to the Agency dated April 24, 2017, 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 agreement was breached when management failed to timely and effectively initiate the back pay payment process. Complainant said that she contacted management concerning the back pay and management replied that her payment was being processed and would take about 60 to 90 days. However, when Complainant made further inquiry, management stated that they had not received her forms. Complainant maintained that her forms were hand delivered to the Manager identified in the settlement agreement, but she later learned that he was displaced from his position before completing the processing of her back pay. She said her forms were given to his replacement but that the new manager had a problem with the processing and claimed that the forms were missing even though they were attached to the email. Complainant requested that the Agency comply with the settlement immediately and provide her with back pay and interest due to intentional delay or reinstate her complaint for further processing from the point EEO processing ceased. In its June 6, 2017 decision, the Agency found that the processing of Complainant’s back pay payment had been delayed but that the Agency had substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and therefore was not in breach. According to the Agency, once it received Complainant’s breach allegations on May 5, 2017, it conducted an inquiry and learned from the Labor Relations Manager (LRM) that the documents to pay Complainant had been submitted and, as of May 17, 2017, were in line to be processed. On May 30, 2017, however, the Accounting Service Center Supervisor informed the LRM that the forms had been returned to management to correct Complainant’s step deferments. After those corrections were made, the LRM stated that the pay adjustments were resubmitted for payment. 0120172503 3 The Agency decided that since it became aware of Complainant’s breach allegation on May 5, 2017, and EEOC regulations gives an agency 35 days to cure any breach, the Agency found that the delay in processing the back pay did not constitute a breach since the delay was the result of a change in staffing in the Labor Relations Office, corrections to the form, and pay adjustments. In sum, the Agency concluded that delay constituted management’s effort to ensure that Complainant was paid as per the agreement. Accordingly, the Agency declined to reinstate the complaint for further processing. It also denied Complainant’s request for interest because there was no provision for payment of extra monies to be paid for a delay in the execution of the settlement terms. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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 regarding 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). In the instant case, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established a breach of the settlement agreement. Although Complainant correctly stated that she was not paid back pay within eight weeks after she submitted her documentation, the terms of the settlement agreement indicated that the Agency would “make all reasonable efforts to pay” within this timeframe if the forms were properly completed. The delay in the back pay was largely attributed to staffing changes and administrative errors. Complainant ultimately received her back pay award on July 12, 2017, approximately two months after the Agency was notified of the nonpayment. We find no bad faith by the Agency. Under these circumstances, we find that the period between the execution of the Agreement and the Agency’s compliance, although lengthy, was not sufficient to constitute breach. 0120172503 4 CONCLUSION The Commission AFFIRMS the decision of the Agency finding no breach of the settlement agreement. 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). 0120172503 5 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 October 18, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation