0120102946
06-20-2012
Carol A. Smart, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.
Carol A. Smart,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120102946
Agency No. 1I-536-0005-99
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency properly determined that it did not breach a settlement agreement that the parties entered into resolving Complainant's complaint. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's determination not to reinstate Complainant's complaint.
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2000, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
4g). If Complainant returns to duty pursuant to her acceptance of the permanent rehabilitation job offer referenced in subparagraphs 4d), 4e), and 4f) above, the Agency agrees that Complainant's place on the Agency's seniority roster or board shall be immediately below and junior to the employee who was immediately above and senior to Complaint [sic] as of January 17, 1998. The Agency further agrees that if Complainant returns to duty pursuant to her acceptance of the permanent rehabilitation job offer referenced in subparagraphs 4d), 4e), and 4f) above, the Agency shall deem Complainant to have been employed continuously from Complainant's date of hire, September 12, 1987, to the effective date of such return to duty.
On May 3, 2010, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant claimed that on January 6, 2010, she received an annuity estimate indicating her retirement computation date (RCD) as December 18, 1998, instead of May 30, 1986. On January 11, 2010, she wrote a letter to the Agency Human Resources Shared Services Center (HRSSC) about the incorrect RCD. On February 11, 2010, she received a letter from the HRSSC indicating that her RCD would be changed from May 30, 1986, to November 26, 1987, and her leave computation date would be changed from June 22, 1987, to December 18, 1988, unless she submits any documentation supporting her claim otherwise. The HRSSC also indicated that these changes were due to the deduction of her leave without pay in excess of 1,040 hours in a year from her service. In her letter dated February 17, 2010, Complainant responded to the HRSSC claiming that under the November 28, 2000 settlement agreement, she was entitled to credit of 38 months in question as time served and her RCD should be May 30, 1986. The HRSSC, however, denied Complainant's foregoing claim and maintained her RCD as November 26, 1987.
The Agency determined that Complainant failed to timely allege a breach claim to the Agency. The Agency stated that Complainant was questioning her RCD as early as January 11, 2010, but she did not notify the EEO office until April 23, 2010, which was beyond the 30-day time limit set by the regulations. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). The Agency also indicated that the alleged RCD matter was not within the purview of the settlement agreement at issue and that therefore there was no breach of the settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Initially, we note that Complainant on appeal contends, and the record reflects, that the settlement agreement at issue did not include the 30-day time limit to contact the EEO office concerning the alleged breach. We will assume, without deciding, Complainant timely notified the EEO office concerning the alleged breach. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
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).
Upon review, we find that Complainant's claim concerning her RCD was beyond the scope of the terms of the settlement agreement since the matter was not clearly included therein. We note that Complainant should have made sure that her RCD was expressly included in the settlement agreement in order to bind the Agency under the settlement agreement. We also note that Complainant did not claim that the Agency breached any other items of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no settlement breach is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
6/20/12
__________________
Date
2
0120102946
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120102946