0120161546
10-11-2016
Monroe C.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Monroe C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161546
Agency No. 4G770001816
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated March 16, 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 December 1, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
In response to the request from the counselee, [the named management official] will review [Complainant's] PSE Mail Processing application to review the status. If counselee has completed screens we will process him. If counselee has not completed screens, [the named official] will notify GIS to reschedule. After [the official] receive[s] the screening results and counselee's score is reached he will be hired as a PSE Mail Processing Clerk.
By letter to the Agency dated January 28, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency either reinstate his complaint or enforce the terms of the agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the agreement when it failed to offer him a MSE Mail Clerk Processing position based in North Houston, Texas. Complainant asserts that he was entitled to priority hiring under the terms of the agreement regardless of his score.
In its FAD, the Agency concluded that the settlement agreement had not been breached. The Agency reasoned that several of Complainant's applications for PSE Mail Processing Clerk positions were "still in process" and that "they will be worked accordingly when the District hires more people and reaches Complainant's score."2 The Agency referenced the record that included a sworn statement attesting that USPS hires in score order and that Complainant's score had not been reached on his pending applications and that when his score is reached, GIS will email Complainant regarding the drug screen and background check.
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.
In the instant case, the Agreement stated that Complainant would be hired as a PSE Mail Processing Clerk after management received the screening results and his score was reached. Inasmuch as neither of those prerequisites has been met, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the Agreement. While Complainant argues that the Agency was incorrect in its assertion that there was no record that Complainant had applied for a PSE Mail Processing Clerk position at the North Houston P&DC, he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Complainant also seems to have argued that he was entitled to be hired no matter what score he had. However, this is not what he agreed to under the clear terms of the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Final Decision.
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
October 11, 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 The Agency's decision referenced two applications as still "in process": NB93682342 (Conroe, Texas) and NB92546525 (Houston, Texas). The Agency further noted that Complainant's score of 75.50 had not yet been reached for these positions. Complainant referenced another position in North Houston he had applied for, but the Agency asserted it had no application for such a position. There is no evidence to dispute the Agency's assertion.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120161546
2
0120161546