0120160868
05-24-2016
Wade H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Wade H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160868
Agency No. 1F-927-0066-15
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's November 25, 2015 final decision (FAD), 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 complaint, Complainant worked as a Motor Vehicle Operator at the Agency's Santa Ana Processing & Distribution Center facility in Santa Ana, California.
On August 4, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Postal Service agrees to pay [Complainant] a lump sum of $1,100.00 which represents compensation of 32 hours of regular pay and 8 hours of overtime pay. This process will be initiated within one week of this EEO.
(2) Management agrees between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 AM, [Complainant] will park and unload on the East Dock between [slot] numbers 45 and 55 or whatever open slots between those docks. [Complainant] will be permitted to use restroom #1078 on the East Dock Side. This arrangement represents management's most diligent plan to keep [Complainant] free of any perceived threat on the work room floor.
On September 30, 2015, the Agency provided Complainant the $1,100.00 payment.
By letter to the Agency dated October 29, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. He requested that the Agency reinstate his complaint. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide him with access to a dedicated parking slot, failed to pay him back pay with interest, as he says was promised to him at an earlier redress hearing, and failed to keep a named co-worker away from "coming close to him on the East Dock and door from 6:00AM to 11:00 AM." Complainant maintains that the named expeditor on tour 2 was not supposed to exit or enter a particular door where Complainant works. He also claims that the Agency continues to subject him to continuing harassment. He is seeking enforcement of the earlier verbal redress agreement, plus interest on the money which he believes is still owed to him.
The Agency Decision
The Agency concluded it had complied with the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that it paid Complainant the $1,100.00, and had not prohibited him from parking in any of the designated slots or in the other open slots as they become available. The Agency stated that "no additional specificity for parking, indicating a specific / single stall is stipulated or implied within the language of the August 4, 2015 EEO Settlement Agreement." The Agency found that "the terms of this Settlement Agreement were executed."
This appeal followed.
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).
We find that the Agreement was valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement required a lump sum payment to resolve all of the outstanding monetary claims. The payment was made. The Agreement also required that Complainant be permitted to park and unload on the East Dock between bay numbers 45 and 55 or wherever there was an open, available space. The Agreement did not specify that any one particular space always be available. The Agreement permitted Complainant to use the restroom facility on the East Dock Side and, it appears this was also done. The Agreement stated that this plan was intended "to keep [Complainant] free of any perceived threat on the work room floor." The record indicates that the Agency implemented these steps. We find, therefore, that Complainant has not shown that the Agency breached the Agreement.
Further, to the extent that Complainant is raising new issues of retaliatory harassment which arose after the execution of the Agreement, he should contact the EEO counselor to raise these matters in a separate complaint.
For all of these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the terms of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (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
May 24, 2016
__________________
Date
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
0120160868