Robin S. Nitz, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 25, 2000
01976619 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 25, 2000)

01976619

08-25-2000

Robin S. Nitz, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Nitz v. United States Postal Service,

Appeal No. 01976619

08-25-00

.

Robin S. Nitz,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01976619

Agency No. 4-J-493-1136-95

DECISION

Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Commission for a determination

regarding whether the agency breached the settlement agreement that

resolved her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation

of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. �791.<1>

The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

refered to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)).

The issue presented is whether the agency breached a settlement agreement

that it entered into with complainant in July of 1995. The agency employed

complainant as a part-time letter carrier at its facility in Benton

Harbor, Michigan. She placed a bid on a full-time carrier route, but was

notified by the postmaster that she was not the senior qualified bidder

for the position. Investigative File (IF) 194. She filed a complaint

in which she alleged the postmaster discriminated against her on the

basis of physical disability (multiple sclerosis) by not accepting her

bid for the rural carrier route. On July 11, 1995, the parties entered

into a settlement agreement which contained the following provision:

The [agency's] medical and health unit will make an appointment with a

board-certified specialist and notify me of the time and date no later

than 7-28-95. This specialist is to determine if [complainant] can meet

the essential functions of a regular rural carrier position. Based on the

opinion of the board-certified specialist, if [complainant is] able to

carry the route with or without reasonable accommodation, without causing

any undue hardship on the service under the law, management will assign

[complainant] to [rural route 4]. The said board-certified specialist

will be selected from a list of 3 specialists in the medical field for the

condition in question. Selection will be made by the alternate striking

of names by the employer and [complainant and/or her] representative.

IF 181. Complainant and the postmaster mutually agreed on the selection

of a contract physician to conduct the fitness-for-duty examination.

IF 163. The examination was conducted on September 28, 1995, and

the examining physician notified the postmaster of the results of

that examination. IF 173, 175. Based upon the physician's report, the

postmaster determined that complainant could not fulfill the requirements

of a regular rural carrier, and consequently awarded rural route 4 to

another bidder. IF 176.

The settlement agreement specified that complainant would be given

rural route 4 if the board-certified specialist retained to conduct the

fitness-for-duty examination concluded that complainant could carry the

route, with or without reasonable accommodation, without imposing an undue

hardship upon the agency. IF 181. The contract physician conducted the

examination on September 28, 1995. In an eight-page report, the contract

physician set forth his findings and conclusions. In paragraph (1) of

the report, the contract physician stated that complainant was capable

of performing the functional requirements of a rural carrier position,

but that she would not be able to safely lift seventy pounds or manage

steps and other irregular terrain, particularly in slippery environments.

IF 168. In paragraph (5), the physician noted that complainant's

multiple sclerosis and its effects on her ability to control her arms

and legs raised the potential of complainant being hazardous to herself

and others when she drove. IR 167. He also noted that exacerbations

and remissions, as well as the disease itself, could not be predicted.

IF 167. He stated in his concluding paragraph:

In summary, [complainant] can't fulfill her job without some assistance or

�slack.� She has been doing a full-time job over the last week and [has]

been getting by. It is reasonable with some allowances that the patient

will be able to tolerate a full-time job. She will be at increased risk

for falling. If she lets herself get fatigued there will be increased

risk of exacerbation of the MS. The MS though can exacerbate with or

without a change in fatigue, given the nature of the condition.

IF 166-67. On the basis of the contract physician's report, the agency's

medical officer notified the postmaster that complainant could not fulfill

the job requirements of a full-time regular rural carrier position without

assistance or reduction in the essential requirements of the position.

IR 174. The medical officer made the following findings:

1. [Complainant] is moderately ataxic with regard to walking and turning.

She was unsteady when testing her gait and balance, and would have fallen

without assistance.

2. [Complainant] may not be able to lift heavy parcels without

assistance and over irregular ground terrain, especially in slippery

environmental conditions. It is advised [that] she have assistance or

leave notification for the customer to pick up the parcel at the postal

facility. However, this does not provide quality customer service and

[inconveniences] the customer.

3. Technically, if [complainant] is required to do her job without

assistance and/or variance from the essential job requirements, she

would not be able to perform then safely.

4. Additionally, it is noted that the effects of her multiple sclerosis

on her ability to control her arms and legs makes her somewhat hazardous

to herself and others when operating a motor vehicle, especially as her

multiple sclerosis progresses.

IF 175. Based upon the medical officer's recommendation, the postmaster

notified complainant, by letter dated November 24, 1995, that complainant

would be placed in off-duty status, retroactive to November 17, 1995,

on the grounds that complainant might be injurious to herself or others.

The notice further stated that:

It appeared from recent medical evaluations from [the contract physician]

that you cannot perform the essential duties of your position in a safe

manner. Pending further investigation, you are hereby advised that you

will remain in an off-duty status until further notice.

IF 177. On November 30, 1995, complainant wrote a letter to the EEO

investigator charged with processing her case, in which she stated

that the agency failed to adhere to the stipulations contained in the

July 1995 settlement agreement. She stated that the agency's medical

officer misinterpreted the contract physician's report. She argued that

the medical officer's conclusion that complainant would not be able to

operate a motor vehicle safely was speculation and not based on the

contract physician's complete medical opinion. IR 179. On December

13, 1995, complainant wrote a second letter to the EEO investigator,

stating that she wished to have her complaint reinstated. IF 185.

The agency thereafter issued a final decision in which it determined

that there was no breach of the agreement. It is from this decision

that complainant now appeals.

Settlement agreements are contracts between complainant and the agency

and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not

some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Herrington v. Department of Defense - Defense Commissary Agency, EEOC

Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996) (face of the agreement best

reflects the understanding of the parties); Eggleston v. Department

of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In

interpreting settlement agreements, the Commission has applied the

contract principle known as the "plain meaning rule" which holds that

where a writing is unambiguous on its face, its meaning is determined

from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic

evidence. Klein v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC

Request No. 05940033 (June 30, 1994); Brown v. Department of Commerce,

EEOC Request No. 05921059 (June 24, 1993).

Complainant initially argues that the agency breached the settlement

agreement by relying on the medical officer's interpretation of the

contract physician's report. The settlement agreement executed by the

parties on July 11, 1995, unambiguously states that the agency was to

arrange for a fitness-for-duty examination. The agency accomplished

this by having its medical officer refer complainant to the contract

physician. IR 173. The examination was conducted on September 28, 1995.

Complainant and the agency's medical officer both agreed to the selection

of the contract physician, and there are no indications that complainant

objected to that choice. IF 163-65. The agreement clearly specified

that the agency would assign complainant to rural route 4 if the contract

physician determined that she could perform the essential functions of

that position. The contract physician conducted the examination and issued

a report that included his recommendation. On the basis of the contract

physician's report, the medical officer concluded that complainant's

multiple sclerosis prevented her from performing the essential functions

of the rural carrier position. He provided his opinion of the results

of the examination to the postmaster, as he was obliged to do under the

terms of his employment with the agency. Complainant has not presented

any evidence in support of her assertion that the agency was precluded

by the settlement agreement from relying on the opinions of its own

medical officer.

Next, complainant maintains that the medical officer's opinions are

irrelevant and misstate the contract physician's opinions. Contrary to

complainant, however, we find that the conclusions drawn by the medical

officer are entirely consistent with the contract physician's report.

The medical officer's conclusion regarding complainant's ability to

walk and her unsteadiness are supported by the contract physician's

findings that complainant has exhibited the staggering and walking

incontinence normally associated with multiple sclerosis, and that

her walking remained unsteady. IF 172-73. The medical officer's

conclusion regarding complainant's inability to lift heavy parcels and

walk over terrain is taken from paragraph (1) in the �discussion� section

of the report. IF 168. The medical officer's remaining conclusions

are likewise drawn from paragraph (5) and the summary paragraph of the

contract physician's report. IF 166-67. Complainant merely challenges

the medical officer's interpretation of the contract physician's findings.

She has not presented any documents or testimony showing that the medical

officer made his determination in a manner that was inconsistent with

the terms of the July 1995 settlement agreement.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision

because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish

that the agency breached the July 11, 1995 settlement agreement.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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 (Z1199)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:

______________________________

Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

__08-25-00________________

Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.