01a44231_r
10-15-2004
Vickie L. Quiles, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Vickie L. Quiles v. United States Postal Service
01A44231
October 15, 2004
.
Vickie L. Quiles,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44231 Agency No. 1I-531-0148-97
DECISION
The record reveals that on May 18, 2001, complainant and the agency
entered into a settlement agreement regarding complainant's EEO complaint.
The settlement provided in pertinent part as follows:
Upon the lifting of the current hiring freeze/pause, and the hiring
needs of the [Agency], the complainant will be one of the first five
individuals hired as a new employee for the position of Level 4, Mail
Processor in Milwaukee WI with a new probation period. This provision is
contingent on, and provided that, the complainant meets all pre-hiring
requirements, and there is a need for the [Agency] to hire level 4 mail
processors in Milwaukee.
The Employee's PS Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action dated
03-06-1994 will be changed to read that the complainant resigned for
Personal Reasons.
The [Agency] will [reimburse. . . complainant's] attorney . . . attorney
fees of $2[,]500.00.
By letter dated February 4, 2003, complainant was informed by the
agency that she is no longer being considered for employment because
she falsified her job application and its records indicate that she was
terminated from the agency on March 6, 1994, due to failure to maintain
a proper work schedule. Complainant subsequently sent a copy of this
letter to the EEO Office and it was received there on February 27, 2003.
Complainant underlined the portion of the letter that states �Our records
indicate that you were terminated from the [Agency] on 3/6/94 due to
failure to maintain a proper work schedule.� By letter dated February
21, 2003, the Human Resources Associate informed complainant that she
could disregard the letter dated February 4, 2003, because the Office
had no indication that complainant's termination had been changed to a
voluntary resignation. Complainant also submitted a copy of this letter
to the EEO Office on February 26, 2003, and it was received there on
February 27, 2003. Complainant underlined the portion of the letter that
states, �At that time, your Official Personnel Folder was not available
for review. Therefore, I had no indication that your termination had
been changed to a voluntary resignation per EEO settlement.�
On January 15, 2004, the agency's EEO Office received from complainant
a letter wherein complainant claimed that the agency had breached the
settlement agreement by not changing her record to show she resigned from
the agency. By decision dated April 28, 2004, the agency determined
that it had not breached the settlement agreement. The agency noted
that complainant became aware on February 4, 2003, that the agency
had not changed her PS Form 50 from termination to resignation, yet
complainant did not contact the EEO Office until January 15, 2004.
The agency stated that upon being made aware of the settlement agreement,
it immediately processed the appropriate change on February 19, 2004.
The agency stated that complainant's corrected PS Form 50 indicates that
she resigned for personal reasons.
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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of
the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
Upon review of the record, we find that complainant has not established
that she raised her claim of breach in a timely manner. Complainant
learned in February 2003 via an agency employment rejection letter that
the agency had not changed her PS Form 50 from termination to resignation.
Complainant submitted a copy of that letter to the EEO Office underlining
the relevant portion. The mere submission of the letter with the
underlined portion to the EEO Office was not sufficient to place the
agency on notice of an alleged breach of the settlement agreement.
Complainant states on appeal that she called an EEO official promptly
after receiving the employment rejection letter. However, complainant
has not submitted evidence that supports her position or otherwise
shows that she contacted the agency EEO Office in a timely manner
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). We find that despite the fact that
complainant learned of the alleged breach in February 2003, she did not
raise a breach claim in writing within thirty days as specified in 29
C.F.R. �1614.504(a). Complainant's initial written allegation of breach
occurred in January 2004, and such claim was raised in an untimely manner.
Furthermore, we note that the agency corrected complainant's PS Form 50
on February 25, 2004, to reflect that complainant resigned for personal
reasons.
Therefore, the agency's April 28, 2004 decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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 whic0h 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 15, 2004
__________________
Date