0120121335
06-12-2012
Lorna P. Ryan, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Lorna P. Ryan,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121335
Agency No. 4H-327-0096-08
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated December 20, 2011, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a July 29, 2008 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
On July 29, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter that Complainant had pursued through the EEO complaint process. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) Management agrees that a chair is being ordered per [Complainant's] medical restrictions & should be delivered w/3 weeks. (It should be approved & ordered this week & delivery should take an additional 2 weeks. However, all parties agree that if a small reasonable delay occurs, it will not compromise the intent of this agreement).
The record reveals that by letter to the Agency dated August 3, 2008, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. According to Complainant, on the date and subsequent to when the settlement was signed, July 29, 2008, the letter case she is required to work at was moved and placed in front of the supervisor's desk in the middle of the floor. Complainant stated that her case was moved to a separate location away from the other cases in zone 06.
By letter dated August 8, 2008, Complainant requested that the Agency reinstate her complaint as she stated that she has been retaliated against since she signed the settlement agreement. By letter dated September 17, 2008, Complainant stated that the Agency breached the term of the settlement agreement providing that she would be treated as per all other employees pursuant to Agency policy and procedures and the National Agreement. Complainant asserted that she was not being treated the same as the other employees as she was being harassed while she attempted to work.
On November 10, 2008, the Agency issued a final action finding no breach of the July 29, 2008 settlement agreement. In her appeal, Complainant argued that the chair that was purchased was cracked and not what her physician prescribed. Complainant further claimed that the chair stool was not in accord with her physician's statement of January 19, 2009, which was that a cushioned chair was medically necessary. The Commission vacated and remanded the Agency's November 10, 2008 final action finding that Complainant was provided with a damaged chair and that the Agency breached the settlement agreement. The Agency was ordered to supplement the record with evidence addressing whether the chair provided under the settlement agreement was ordered per Complainant's medical restrictions and whether the chair was delivered in good working condition. Ryan v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 010091023 (April 29, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110542 (November 2, 2011).1
The Agency issued a new decision on December 20, 2011, which is the subject of the instant appeal. In its December 20, 2011 final decision, the Agency again found no breach. The Agency found that the Acting Manager, Customer Services (AM) stated that a chair was purchased for Complainant in accordance with medical restrictions in 2008. AM further stated that the Central Florida Reasonable Accommodation Committee was involved in the selection of Complainant's chair that met her restrictions. AM stated that even though the chair was purchased and received in new condition, Complainant refused it because it did not have wheels. AM stated that the Agency does not permit the use of chairs with wheels because such chairs present a safety hazard. In support of its assertions, the Agency provided a copy of AM's affidavit and the invoice.
The record contains a copy of AM's affidavit dated December 19, 2011. Therein, AM stated that after the Central Florida Reasonable Accommodation Committee ordered the chair that met Complainant's restrictions, the Agency received the chair "in new condition. [Complainant] refused the purchased chair because it did not have wheels. Postal Operations do not permit the use of chairs with wheels because they present a safety hazard. [Complainant] was subsequently provided a non wheeled office chair that was in a good working condition. The chair provided to [Complainant] was used and she was removed from the office through the NRP process."
The record also contains a copy of the invoice from a named postal supply company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated August 4, 2008, for an industrial stool for casing mail, Model No. 9650590000. The record contains an email dated August 6, 2008, from the postal supply company confirming that it had received the Agency's order. The chair was shipped to the Agency on August 26, 2008.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argues that the chair that the Agency purchased for her did not meet her medical restrictions. Specifically, Complainant states that her physician requested that the Agency provide her a padded chair "not a HARD PLASTIC MOLDED STOOL. The stool order did not get completed as noted in the file per [Clerk] who did the ordering of it several times. It was also shipped on Aug 26 [2008], according to the record and not delivered until sometime in September [emphasis in its original]." Complainant further argues that AM's statement that she refused the chair because it did not have wheels was false. Finally, Complainant states the Agency has not yet reimbursed her in the amount of $101.00 "noted in the agreement as well."
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
In the instant case, the Agency complied with provision 2 of the settlement agreement. Provision 2 of the agreement provides for an affirmative Agency obligation to order a chair per Complainant's medical restrictions. Complainant asserts, however, that the Agency ordered the wrong chair which was a violation of her settlement agreement with the Agency. We note that the record reflects that the Central Florida Reasonable Accommodation Committee reviewed the recommendation from Complainant's physician and selected the chair per Complainant's medical restrictions. Therefore, we find that the Agency properly found no breach of provision 2.
.
Finally, we note that on appeal, Complainant raises a new breach claim stating that she did not receive the $101.00 medical reimbursement. It is inappropriate for Complainant to raise the new breach claim for the first time as part of the instant appeal.
Accordingly, the Agency's finding of no breach of provision 2 of the July 29, 2008 settlement agreement was proper and 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
June 12, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record reflects that in its April 29, 2011 decision, the Commission determined that Complainant's claims of being monitored constantly and her distribution case was relocated are subsequent acts of reprisal and harassment after the agreement was signed. Complainant was advised that if she wishes to pursue such new claims, then she should raise her claims of further reprisal and harassment as a new, separate EEO claim instead of a breach allegation.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121335
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121335
6
0120121335