0120071567
03-31-2009
Payola Knowles, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Payola Knowles,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120071567
Agency No. 4H330001104
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision (FAD) dated January 3, 2007, finding that the agency was in
compliance with the terms of the April 22, 2005 settlement agreement into
which the parties had entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402, 1614.504(b),
and 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
(1) The Agency has a modified job assignment, which will be available
commencing June 1, 2005. The Agency agrees to fill that position with
[complainant]. In exchange, [complainant] agrees to withdraw ALL pending
grievances and/or EEOC (or EEO) claims in connection with this matter.
Upon the signing of this agreement, [complainant] will sign a Form 2499X
in order to process the paperwork for the modified job assignment.
[Complainant] will begin to work in the new modified job assignment
commencing June 1, 2005. The continuation of the modified job assignment,
which [complainant] will fill, will be dependent on the needs of the
service. (emphasis added).
By letter to the agency dated November 16, 2006, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement because the
position was abolished during an audit of staffing needs. In its January
3, 2007 FAD, the agency concluded that the settlement agreement provided
that the continuation of the position would be dependent on the needs
of the service. Pursuant to an audit, staffing reductions were made,
and complainant's position was one selected for abolishment.
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, the record reveals complainant entered into an
agreement which provided her with a modified work assignment. Further,
the settlement agreement provided that continuation of the assignment
would be dependent on the needs of the service. This term should have
indicated to complainant that the continued placement into the specific
position was for an uncertain period, and was dependent on other factors.
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement that places a
complainant into a specific position, without defining the length of
service or other elements of the employment relationship, will not
be interpreted to require the agency to employ the complainant in the
identical job specified forever. See Parker v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05910576 (August 29, 1991); Papac v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05910808 (December 12, 1991); Elliott
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01970474 (August 27,
1997). With regard to other incidents raised by complainant on appeal to
the Commission, we remind complainant and the agency that, to the extent
that complainant is alleging that subsequent acts of discrimination
violated the terms of the settlement agreement, those claims shall be
processed as a separate complaint and not as a breach claim. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.504(c).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the final agency decision finding no breach of settlement
is AFFIRMED.
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
March 31, 2009
Date
2
0120070567
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120071567
5
0120071567