01976742
03-30-1999
Victoria Guarnieri, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Victoria Guarnieri v. United States Postal Service
01976742
March 30, 1999
Victoria Guarnieri, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01976742
) Agency No. 4A-105-0045-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's decision denying her request to
reinstate her complaint. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.402, 504(b); EEOC Order
No. 960, as amended.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached the settlement
agreement.
BACKGROUND
An informal complaint filed by appellant was resolved by a settlement
agreement entered into on January 27, 1997. The agreement stated in
relevant part:
[Appellant], as well as other employees, will be assisted in any way
possible for an opportunity to work as a 204B in this office or other
installations and to become a part of the Associate Supervisor Program
when it is available or open. We recognize that this is preparation
for opportunities and not a guarantee of receiving a position.
The record reveals that in letters to the agency dated June 1, and June
26, 1997, appellant stated that management has not complied with the
settlement agreement. According to appellant, she was only provided with
several days of "babysitting" the distribution clerks. Appellant stated
that she did not receive any formal training. In contrast, appellant
stated that two male coworkers acquired extensive 204B experience.
Appellant requested that her complaint be reinstated.
In its final decision, the agency determined that the settlement agreement
has not been breached. The agency stated that during the period of
February 15, 1997 through March 7, 1997, appellant was afforded the
opportunity on eight different occasions to act in the capacity of
Supervisor, Customer Services, EAS-16. The agency noted that formal
training was not a part of the settlement agreement. Further, the
agency stated that on March 8, 1997, the vacancy announcement for the
Associate Supervisor Training Program was posted, but appellant did not
apply for it. Finally, with regard to appellant's contention that two
male coworkers were afforded more opportunities than her to act in the
capacity of a 204B, the agency stated that this matter was not included
in the settlement agreement.
On appeal, appellant argues that the intent of the settlement agreement
has not been fulfilled. Appellant claims that verbal discussions held
prior to execution of the agreement indicated that she would be afforded
opportunities similar to that of others in the office. Appellant states
that in the eight occasions where she served in a higher level pay status,
she was not officially designated as a 204B and she was not allowed to
make any decisions or function in a true supervisory capacity, whereas
male employees were allowed to serve for months as a 204B. According to
appellant, formal training was part of the greater opportunity offered
to male employees.
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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final decision, 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.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b) provides that the agency shall
resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the
agency has not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the
complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt to resolve the
matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a determination
as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of the settlement
agreement or final decision. The complainant may file such an appeal
35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations of
noncompliance, but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her
receipt of an agency's determination.
Settlement agreements are contracts between appellant and the agency and
it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(August 23, 1990). In interpreting settlement agreements, the Commission
has applied the contract principle known as the "plain meaning rule"
which holds that where a writing is unambiguous on its face, its
meaning is determined from the four corners of the instrument without
resort to extrinsic evidence. Smith v. Defense Logistics Agency,
EEOC Appeal No. 01913570 (December 2, 1991). Moreover, other standard
contractual requirements such as the necessity of consideration, apply
in this context. Collins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990); Shuman v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990); Roberts v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01842193 (May 9, 1985).
In the instant matter, appellant alleged that the agency breached the
settlement agreement by not affording her opportunities to act as a
204B equal to that of two male coworkers. Upon review, we find that
the agency has not violated the terms of the agreement. The settlement
provided that appellant, as well as other employees, would be assisted in
any way possible for an opportunity to work as a 204B. Appellant served
eight days at the higher paid level. The agreement does not guarantee
that appellant will have the same number of opportunities to act as a
204B as other employees. If appellant had intended that requirement
be part of the agreement, appellant should have requested that such
a provision be included in the formal settlement. Appellant received
several opportunities to work in the 204B capacity. Appellant also had
the opportunity to apply for the Associate Supervisor Training Program,
but she chose not to apply. The record does not support appellant's
argument that the agency has acted contrary to the spirit and intent
of the agreement. Therefore, we find that the agency did not breach
the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the agency's final decision is
hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
March 30, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations