[Redacted], Joannie V., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2021000600 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Joannie V.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021000600 Agency Nos. 4C-190-0050-20 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated August 10, 2020, 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 At the time of events giving rise to this compliance action, Complainant worked as a Clerk at the Agency’s Collegeville Post Office facility in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process on several occasions.2 On May 1, 2020, Complainant and the Agency entered into another settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. 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 issued a breach determination decision on April 8, 2020, referencing complaint 4C-190-0166-19, in response to the breach claim that Complainant submitted on March 4, 2020. 2021000600 2 According to the record at Exhibit A, the agreement related to “pre-complaint 4C-190-0050-20.” In the agreement, Complainant voluntarily agreed to settle all of her claims. The May 1, 2020 Agreement stated, in pertinent part, that: Within 30 days from settlement signing, the [Complainant] will be provided with her TACS records from December 2019 to April 3, 2020. The [Complainant] will review the records and discuss with management, within 30 days, any overtime, out of schedule and higher level pay she believes she did not receive. Where in agreement, pay adjustments will be done. The [Complainant] will review her rings each week in LiteBlue. If the [Complainant] believes there is an error with her work hours or clock rings, she will bring this to the attention of management to be addressed before the week ends. The [Complainant] will further be retrained on completing travel time in E-travel. The [Complainant] and management will work to improve on their office communications. The [Complainant] may bring any perceived contractual issue to the union’s attention. The Agency stated that, on May 5, 2020, the current supervisor at Collegeville, Pennsylvania provided Complainant with the TACS records for the period December 2019 through April 3, 2020. Thereafter, on May 30, 2020 and June 1, 2020, Complainant submitted the “paperwork for EEO case 4C-190-0050-20.” By letter to the Agency dated July 2, 2020, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and requested that the Agency implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to make the pay adjustments to correct the errors that Complainant had identified. On July 14, 2020, the Agency requested additional documentation. Complainant resubmitted the breach claim again on August 8, 2020. Complainant claimed that she was “entitled to guaranteed time and out of schedule pay.” The Postmaster reviewed the documents, along with the Officer-In-Charge (OIC), but found that Complainant had not provided any supporting documentation, such as a signed PS Form 1260 (Non-Electronic Badge Reader Card) for which a deviation of schedule is required with management’s approval. The Postmaster explained that, “according to the contract,” Complainant was not entitled to these, and consequently, no pay adjustments were necessary. On August 10, 2020, the Agency issued its determination decision on the breach claim. In its decision, the Agency acknowledged that there had been a delay in compliance, but the Agency essentially found that it had cured any breach. The complaint number settled was listed as 4C- 190-0050-20. The decision said Complainant provided the list of pay discrepancies on June 1, 2020, and there were only two items that the Postmaster agreed warranted a pay adjustment and these were processed as of August 8, 2020. 2021000600 3 The decision quoted the Postmaster, who said some of the adjustments had already been made in March of 2020, and there were also clock ring entries that “warranted [Complainant’s] time to be disallowed via PS Form 1017-A (Time Disallowance Record).” The Agency reasoned that the Postmaster also reviewed the documents and found the documents that Complainant’s supporting documentation were insufficient. The Agency reasoned that Complainant had not provided any supporting documentation such as a signed PS Form 1260 (Non-Electronic Badge Reader Card) for which a deviation of schedule is required with management’s approval. In response to Complainant’s claim she was entitled to guaranteed time and out of schedule pay, the Agency’s decision stated the Postmaster explained that, “according to the contract, Complainant was not entitled to these and no pay adjustments are necessary.” The Agency stated, “to date, Complainant has not provided any additional documentation that would support her beliefs as to the requested pay adjustments.” Complainant then filed the instant appeal. 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). Initially, we note these records are confusing. It is also unclear whether the Agency was addressing two distinct settlement agreements. Further, Complainant’s writing is often illegible. Complainant’s name, location, and her job title are not clear from the limited information before us on appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the Agreement was valid and binding on both parties. In this case, the parties agreed that Complainant would waive all of her claims in exchange for the Agency’s promises to review any errors that Complainant presented for review and to correct those that were appropriate for correction. The record shows that Complainant initialed off on the Agency’s corrections, noting her acceptance of the corrections that were made. 2021000600 4 The record supports the Agency’s contention that it appropriately corrected all of the errors for which there was adequate documentation, consistent with the Agreement. Complainant did not provide clear evidence that the Agency erred with regard to the corrections that were done. We find, therefore, that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency breached the Agreement. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s determination decision. 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). 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). 2021000600 5 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. 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 5, 2021 Date