[Redacted], Grant A., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 25, 2021Appeal No. 2020005086 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Grant A.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020005086 Agency No. 1F914000618 DECISION Complainant timely appealed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) from an August 21, 2020 final agency decision (“FAD”) that found the Agency 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 At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Building Equipment Mechanic (“BEM”), PS-07, at the Agency’s Van Nuys Processing and Distribution Center in Santa Clarita, California. On March 21, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into a negotiated, binding settlement agreement (“Agreement”) to resolve a discrimination complaint that Complainant raised with an EEO Counselor. The responding management officials included Maintenance Management, and specifically, Complainant’s supervisor (“S1”), the Manager, Maintenance Operations. The Agreement states: 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. 2020005086 2 [Complainant] wanted to have training in accordance with MM0-145-14 Guidelines for using Aerial Lift Equipment or Elevating Work Platforms (“EWP”). MMO-141-06 as soon as [there is an] available class. 2 Training under MMO-141-06 refers to, among other things, the Agency’s policy on what training is required to maintain EWP, in compliance with industry standards and federal safety regulations. For instance, MMO-141-06, provides that annual and quarterly inspections of EWPs must be performed by a “qualified mechanic.” In this context, “a qualified mechanic is an employee who successfully attended manufacturer’s training for that [EWP] make and model.”3 Alternately, MMO-141-06, provides that “maintenance and inspection training must be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.” “The training a postal employee receives may vary depending on the tasks the employee is authorized to perform… An employee who is authorized to inspect and maintain the EWP must receive the Familiarization and Operator training in addition to Maintenance training required by the manufacturer to ensure the EWP is maintained in a safe operating condition.” In September 2019, the Agency sent Complainant for a three day long classroom training with JPG Industries in Riverside, California, where he learned about JPG Lifts. According to the Agency, the JPG training fully satisfied training provisions of both MM0-145-14 and MMO- 141-06. It also reasoned that it denied Complainant’s other training requests because they did not pertain to his job duties. On July 22, 2020, Complainant notified an EEO Counselor that the Agency was in breach of the Agreement because S1 and Maintenance Management refused to provide him with additional MMO-141-06 training. Complainant explained that even through the September 2019 training fell within the purview of MMO-141-06, it only pertained to JLG equipment, and did not qualify him to work on the other makes and models of EWPs that he maintained. Complainant requested that the Agency reinstate the underlying complaint so that he could obtain the training necessary to conduct proper inspections in accordance with MMO-141-06. 2 Both parties address the Agency’s failure provide MMO-141-06 training “as soon as [there is an] available class,” however, Complainant states on appeal that the Agency’s year and a half delay in compliance was raised in a prior breach allegation, so we will not include this portion of the Agreement in our analysis. 3 In addition to the record, we have relied on documents provided by Complainant on appeal, including undated excerpts from MMO-141-06 issued by the Agency’s Maintenance Technical Support Center, along with corresponding excerpts from the ANSI/SIA A92.6-1999 Manual of Responsibilities, which is the industry standard for maintaining Aerial Lifts, published by the Scaffold Industry Association (“SIA”) & American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) (Apr. 30, 1999) (updated version published in 2006 references as Mobile elevated work platforms (“MEWPs”) but otherwise no relevant changes to the instant complaint). 2020005086 3 Complainant also disputes the Agency’s reasoning that the additional MMO-141-06 training he requested “did not pertain to his job duties.” In its August 21, 2020 FAD, the Agency concluded that it fully complied with the Agreement. 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 (Dec. 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 (Aug. 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 Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 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); Complainant v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120140143 (Feb. 20, 2014). As a preliminary matter, we decline to analyze whether the Agency complied with the first provision of the Agreement, that Complainant “wanted to have training in accordance with MM0-145-14 Guidelines for using Aerial Lift Equipment or Elevating Work Platforms.” Although the Agency asserts that it complied, there is no language in the agreement obligating the Agency to take any action. By signing the Agreement, the Agency merely acknowledged that Complainant “wanted” this training. For the second provision of the Agreement, which requires the Agency to provide Complainant with “MMO-141-06 training,” the Agency’s alternate argument is the focus of much of Complainant’s appeal. Specifically, the Agency explains that it denied Complainant’s MMO- 141-06 training requests in part because they “did not pertain to his job duties.” Complainant stridently responds that as a BEP, he must be qualified to conduct annual and quarterly inspections of all EWPs. We wanted to reference this issue given Complainant’s emphasis in the record, however, it is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not the Agency breached the Agreement. There is no reference to job duties in the plain language of the Agreement, nor is there language stipulating or qualifying the provisions of the Agreement based on Complainant’s job duties. If Complainant is alleging that the Agency refuses to provide him the necessary training to be able to competently and safely perform his job, he must raise these issues elsewhere, as our focus is limited to whether or not a breach of agreement occurred. 2020005086 4 As for the alleged breach, the Agency contends that it met its obligation to provide “MMO-141- 06 training” under the Agreement when it sent Complainant to the September 2019 JPB training. Complainant contends that the term “MMO-141-06 training” encompasses all of the manufacturers trainings necessary to qualify him to conduct quarterly and annual inspections on the EWPs in his care. Having scrutinized the documentation provided by Complainant on appeal, and in the record, “MMO-141-06 training” appears to refer to an array distinct trainings depending on purpose and source, such as maintenance (manufacturer-recommended training) or annual and quarterly inspections (manufacturer provided training) and varying by the make and model of the EWP. Thus there is no indication in the record that “MMO-141-06 training” is a technical term of art that would align with Complainant’s definition. Applying the definition of “MMO-141-06 training” provided in the documents in the record, and reviewing the plain language of the Agreement, we find that the Agreement does not define MMO-141-06 training to cover all EWPs, as it does not offer any detail beyond the phrase “MMO-141-06 training.” Therefore, the Agency met its obligation under the Agreement, and its failure to provide additional MMO-141-06 training does not constitute breach. To the extent that Complainant interpreted the settlement agreement as mandating that the Agency send him on enough MMO-141-06 trainings to qualify him to conduct quarterly and annual inspections for all EWPs under his care, such interpretation should have been reduced to writing as part of the settlement agreement, and in the absence of a writing cannot be enforced. See Carter v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01985009 (Jul. 2, 1999) citing Jenkins-Nye v. Gen. Serv. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 019851903 (Mar. 4, 1987). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding that it was not in breach of the Agreement. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. 2020005086 5 A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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. 2020005086 6 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 February 25, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation