Patricia L. Jones,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A60577
Agency No. 1H321003704
DECISION
JURISDICTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated September 26, 2005, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the July 16, 2003 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.
The settlement agreement provided that:
[Complainant] will be provided with the following to better enable her
to perform her duties as Ramp Clerk/Expeditor: necessary supplies, forms,
etc., A new file cabinet, signage to prevent others from loitering in her
work area. She will be included in all communication regarding her job.
Her 32 hrs A/L will be restored to her.
By letter to the agency dated March 27, 2004, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency specifically implement its terms. Complainant alleged
that the agency failed to comply with that portion of the agreement
obligating it to include her in all communication regarding her job.
Complainant alleges that changes were made to her job and she was not
informed about the changes to her duties until she requested a copy of
her job description on February 27, 2004. In her statement on appeal,
complainant further alleges that she was informed in December 2003 by
a co-worker that her job duties were being changed. She states that
she contacted her immediate supervisor regarding the changes and did
not receive an answer until she officially requested a copy of her job
description which was dated February 26, 2004. Complainant indicates
that on March 4, 2004, her immediate supervisor provided her with written
instructions regarding the changes to her job duties and how they were to
be performed. Although complainant admits on appeal, that her personnel
folder does not reflect any changes to her job description, she alleges
that her job duties were altered without prior notification in violation
of the July 16, 2003 settlement agreement.
In its September 26, 2005 FAD, the agency concluded that it fully complied
with the agreement between the parties. Specifically, the agency states
that there were no changes made to complainant's job description as
alleged by complainant. The agency indicates that an agency employee
who has since retired from the postal service initially wanted to make
changes to complainant's position, but the changes were never made.
In addition, the agency noted that the job description contained in
complainant's official personnel folder does not reflect any changes to
complainant's position which she has held since April 13, 1996.
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 applying the plain meaning rule as discussed above, the Commission
finds that complainant has failed to demonstrate that the agency
breached the agreement as alleged. Specifically, the settlement
agreement obligated the agency simply to "include complainant in all
communication regarding her job." There is no stipulation regarding
the agency's ability to make changes to complainant's duties nor was
there any requirement that she receive prior notification of decisions
the agency may choose to make concerning her position. Without finding
whether or not changes were actually made to complainant's job description
as alleged, the Commission finds that the agency has not breached the
agreement.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant has failed to
demonstrate that the agency breached the July 16, 2003 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. We find that the agency's
determination regarding its compliance with the agreement was proper
and is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_______06-26-06___________
Date
2
01A60577
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
01A60577