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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 15, 2021

Appeal No. 2021004713 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 15, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Micheal G.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021004713 Agency No. 4C-250-0055-19 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated July 20, 2021, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. The Commission accepts the appeal. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. BACKGROUND During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Supervisor of Customer Service at the Agency’s facility in Forest, Virginia. Complaint File (CF) at 58. While Complainant’s EEO case was pending before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The March 1, 2021 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: In full settlement of all claims by Complainant against the [Agency], the [Agency] agrees to place Complainant in a 90-day detail as Postmaster in Gladys, [Virginia], beginning March 13, 2021. 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. 2021004713 2 By email to the Agency dated June 2, 2021, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to honor its obligation to place him in a 90-day detail as the Gladys Postmaster when it required him to serve at the Forest Main Post Office in the absence of its Postmaster, between April 27 and May 17, 2021. At the direction of the Post Office Operations Manager (POOM), Complainant stated he put his Clerk in charge at the Gladys location, but had to return to handle “several functions” the Clerk lacked the “accesses” to complete. In Complainant’s opinion, an extension “to make up for the time served in Forest” would not remedy the alleged breach. In its July 20, 2021 decision, the Agency concluded that it was in compliance with the settlement agreement. It reasoned that, by March 13, 2021, it placed Complainant in a detail as Postmaster of the Gladys location for 90 days. While acknowledging that Complainant had been asked to assist at the Forest Main Post Office, the Agency determined this did not constitute a breach because the detail to Gladys was not interrupted and he was only at the Forest facility 3 to 4 hours a day. Further, the Agency noted that Complainant had been paid at the higher detail rate for the entire period.2 CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Complainant argues that he worked 10 to 13 hours a day at the Forest facility, not 3 to 4 hours asserted by the Agency. He further submits he was never paid for running the post office in Forest and that he also worked more days than he was paid for. In support of his assertions, Complainant provides the names and contact information of thirteen individuals that can confirm his time at the Forest facility. The Agency, on appeal, reiterates the arguments in its FAD.3 It also contends that Complainant provides no evidence to support his assertion that he worked 10 to 13 hours a day while at the Forest Main Post Office. The Agency maintains that Complainant was only asked to work 3 to 4 hours a day at the Forest location, and he “decided to work full time.” Furthermore, asserts the Agency, if Complainant believed he worked more hours or was not paid fairly, he should have raised his concerns with the POOM rather than as part of the allegation of breach. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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. 2 The Agency notes, and the record reflects, that the first five days of the detail were paid at Complainant’s prior rate, as required by the Employment and Labor Relations Manual (ELM). CF at 16, 26. 3 The Agency also states that it was not served with a copy of Complainant’s appellate brief. 2021004713 3 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. 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. Bldg. Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). In the instant case, we find the Agency has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. The agreement required that, beginning March 13, 2021, the Agency detail Complainant to the position of Postmaster at the Gladys Post Office. The record contains a PS Form 1723, “Assignment Order” reflecting that Complainant was placed in the detail from March 13, 2021 through June 25, 2021. Further, Complainant does not dispute that he was paid at the associated higher rate of pay during the 90 days of his detail While the settlement agreement did not specify all the duties and responsibilities encompassing the Gladys Postmaster position, the Agency persuasively argues that Postmasters are asked to help neighboring offices. In support, the Agency has provided affidavits from management officials attesting that Postmasters and Managers are often called upon to assist at other post offices, should there be a need. According to the Agency, Complainant was the only supervisor available in the area when the unexpected absence arose and was familiar with the duties at the Forest facility. CF at 16, 22, 24. Complainant was only asked to spend 3 to 4 hours a day at the Forest location, maintains the Agency, not the 10 to 13 hours per day Complainant asserts he worked at Forest. Therefore, when Complainant was asked to assist the Forest Post Office, from April 27, 2021 through May 17, 2021, during his 90-day detail as the Gladys Postmaster, this was part of his Postmaster detail assignment and did not violate the settlement agreement. Lastly, to the extent that Complainant believes he was not paid for overtime hours worked during the days he oversaw the Forest Main Post Office, this matter is outside the terms of the March 1, 2021 settlement agreement. See, e.g., Ellis v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03650 (July 25, 2000) (finding that, where a settlement agreement is silent on the issue of overtime pay, an agency’s use of a rate of pay consistent with standard personnel practices is reasonable). As noted by the Agency on appeal, the instant EEO settlement agreement is not the appropriate process for addressing such concerns. Based on a review of the entire record, we find that Complainant did not establish that the settlement agreement was breached. 2021004713 4 CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s finding of no breach 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). 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. 2021004713 5 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 November 15, 2021 Date