Rey G. Salanga, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 4, 2009
0120082454 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 4, 2009)

0120082454

09-04-2009

Rey G. Salanga, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.


Rey G. Salanga,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Pacific Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120082454

Agency No. 1F-904-0047-06

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated April 16, 2008, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of the June 6, 2006 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.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the June 6, 2006 settlement agreement is a valid and binding

settlement agreement, and if so, whether the agency violated the terms

of the agreement.

BACKGROUND

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

If Rey Salanga has problems with [his supervisor] upon return to work,

[the Maintenance Manager] will be available to assist in any dialogue.

In a statement dated February 7, 2008, complainant alleged that the

agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant

alleged that his supervisor harassed him on January 15 and 16, 2008.

Complainant further alleged that during a January 31, 2008 meeting

with his supervisor and the Maintenance Manager, his supervisor stated

that the Maintenance Manager had not informed him about the settlement

agreement. "I feel that this management [sic] failure to communicate

was a contributing factor to the situation," complainant stated.

In its April 16, 2008 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach

the settlement agreement. The FAD stated that the Maintenance Manager

stated that complainant's supervisor was made aware of the settlement

agreement after he returned to work in the Maintenance Department

in September 2007. The FAD stated that the Maintenance Manager also

maintained that he met with complainant and his supervisor on January

31, 2008, after complainant asked for an "audience" with him regarding

problems he had with his supervisor.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

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 agency agreed that the Maintenance Manager would

be available to assist complainant and his supervisor with dialogue

if any problems occurred. However, we note that the agreement does

not specify the manner by which the Maintenance Manager would assist

complainant and his supervisor with dialogue. As such, we determine that

the terms of the settlement agreement are too vague for us to determine

whether the agency complied with the agreement. See Danilo Angeles

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090317 (March 6,

2009) (Commission found agency's promise to "directly address issues

brought up" too vague to enforce agreement); see also Marie Huzina

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120055039 (January

4, 2006) (Commission found agreement for supervisor to "open lines of

communication" with complainant too vague to enforce). We therefore

find the settlement agreement is void and unenforceable.

Accordingly, the Commission will set the settlement agreement aside,

and VACATE the agency's determination of no breach. We REMAND the

complaint to the agency for further processing in accordance with the

Order set forth below.

ORDER

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency is ORDERED to resume processing complainant's complaint

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 from the point processing ceased when the

matter settled. A copy of the agency's notice reinstating the complaint

for processing must be sent to the Compliance Officer, as referenced

below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall

be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,

DC 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,

and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.

If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the complainant

may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action

to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following

an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,

1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant

has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in

accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil

Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject

to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).

If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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 (R0408)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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

_______9-04-09___________

Date

2

0120082454

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120082454