0120092973
10-22-2009
Pamela T. Fain, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Pamela T. Fain,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120092973
Agency No. 1H303002008
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 4, 2009, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the March 6, 2008 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.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will assume her new light duty assignment in
Express Mail effective tomorrow, March 7, 2008. Reporting time is 22:50.
(2) The complainant will provide updated medical restrictions every
30 days to her immediate supervisor.
On January 26, 2009, complainant contacted the agency alleging that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
indicated on January 9, 2009, management began reducing her work hours
from eight to two hours per night. Complainant believed that the agency
was not honoring the settlement agreement.
In its June 4, 2009 FAD, the agency concluded that management had to
change complainant's hours based on a reduction in volume. The agency
noted that the agreement did not guarantee any particular number of hours.
Further, the agency found that the duties were within complainant's
light duty restrictions.
Complainant appealed claiming that the agency's final decision was
erroneous. Complainant argued that the agency's reason for the reduction
of hours was not valid. Complainant claimed that the agency failed to
look for work for her in another unit which she believed was part of
the settlement agreement. Complainant also alleged that she was not
properly paid per the settlement agreement and that she has been denied
light duty assignments.
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. Department of Defense,
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. 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 Hyon 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 Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find that complainant believed that she signed
for more than what was actually agreed to in the settlement agreement.
The record shows that there were only two provisions within the settlement
agreement, namely placing complainant in a light duty assignment in
express mail and for complainant to provide updated medical documentation.
As such, the Commission finds that the agency correctly determined that
it did not breach the settlement agreement.
We note that complainant is alleging that subsequent acts of
discrimination violated the settlement agreement, which should be
processed as a separate complaint of discrimination pursuant to �
1614.106. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). If complainant wishes to pursue
such discrimination claims through the EEO process, then complainant
may raise her claim of subsequent discrimination by contacting an EEO
Counselor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.105 if he has not already done so.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's determination of no breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 22, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120092973
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120092973