[Redacted], Ian C., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 8, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000846 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ian C.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000846 Agency No. 1F-642-0002-21 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated November 8, 2021, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a May 12, 2021 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Clerk at the Agency’s Kansas City Nodal Delivery Center in Kansas City, Kansas. On May 12, 2021, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a complaint that had been pursued through the EEO complaint process. The May 12, 2021 settlement agreement included the following provisions: Provision 1: The parties agree to meet at the time decided by them, regarding issues raised in EEO mediation and improve communication. The meeting will occur 5 to 10 minutes, once every 3 weeks beginning 6/2/21 and end no later than 7/28/21. 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. 2022000846 2 Provision 2: Management will refer Complainant to District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) by 5/14/21. Provision 3: Management agrees to contact the Office of Workers Compensation Program (OWCP) by 5/14/21 regarding Complainant’s injury. By email on October 3, 2021, and subsequent phone call, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the terms of the May 12, 2021 settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant indicated that he was suspended from the Agency from June 12, 2021 to present, and consequently, his regular meetings described in Provision 1 had not occurred. Complainant further indicated that he had not met with the DRAC as required in Provision 2. Finally, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to contact OWCP by the deadline as required by Provision 3 of the settlement agreement. In its November 8, 2021 decision, the Agency found no breach of the May 12, 2021 settlement agreement. The Agency determined that the Distribution of Operations Supervisors (DOS1 and DOS2) met with Complainant twice on May 26, 2021 and during the week of June 9, 2021, all before Complainant was suspended on June 12, 2021. The Agency further determined that DOS1 contacted OWCP on May 13, 2021, and Complainant’s case was under review because Complainant needed to submit medical documentation. Finally, the Agency determined that DOS1 submitted a referral to DRAC on May 13, 2021. Therefore, the Agency reasoned that it had complied with all terms of the May 12, 2021 settlement agreement. The instant appeal followed. Complainant still alleges that the Agency breached the terms of the settlement 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 (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). 2022000846 3 The Agency properly determined that there was no breach of the May 12, 2021 settlement agreement. We note on appeal, Complainant asserts that: (1) he did not remember ever meeting with DOS1 or DOS2; (2) DOS1 failed to provide him the CA16 form which would authorize him to see a doctor to get the required medical report that he needed; and (3) he did not receive a response from the DRAC after he submitted his paperwork on May 19, 2021. Although Complainant asserts that he did not remember meeting with DOS1 or DOS2, the record reflects that these meetings occurred. The record reflects further that the meetings ceased following Complainant’s June 12, 2021 suspension which continued through and beyond the required meeting period ending on July 28, 2021. The settlement agreement did not provide any language to address a rescheduling of these meetings in the event of unforeseen cancelation. To the extent that Complainant asserts that the Agency failed to provide him the CA16 form or that the DRAC failed to contact him following his submission, we note that these claims are beyond the scope of the terms of the settlement agreement. Here, the Agency management was only required to refer Complainant to the DRAC and to contact OWCP about Complainant’s injury by May 14, 2021. The record reflects that Agency management satisfied these obligations on May 13, 2021. Therefore, any concerns Complainant has regarding actions or inactions (i.e. failure to provide CA16 form or failure to respond to Complainant’s DRAC submission) by Agency management occurring after these obligations were met exceed the terms of the settlement agreement. The Agency’s final decision finding no breach of the May 12, 2021 settlement agreement is AFFIRMED. 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. 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). 2022000846 4 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. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. 2022000846 5 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 March 8, 2022 Date