Debra Perkins v. United States Postal Service

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DEBRA PERKINS,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1683
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. NY-0353-18-0147-C-2.
______________________
Decided: November 5, 2024
______________________
DEBRA PERKINS, Garner, NC, pro se.
MATTHEW LEWIS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1683 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

PERKINS v. USPS 2
PER CURIAM.
Debra Perkins, proceeding pro se, petitions for review
of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board
(“Board”) which denied Ms. Perkins’ petition for
enforcement of a settlement agreement. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Perkins was a mail handler with the United States
Postal Service (“Postal Service”) in Brooklyn, New York,
until the Postal Service terminated the position, and she
was not reemployed. Ms. Perkins appealed to the Board on
June 19, 2018, alleging that “the [Postal Service] denied
her restoration when it discontinued her limited duty
position.” S.A. 9.1 On October 17, 2018, before her
scheduled hearing, Ms. Perkins and the Postal Service
entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement required that Ms. Perkins withdraw her appeal
in exchange for a lump sum payment of $10,000. It is
undisputed that Ms. Perkins received the lump sum. The
agreement also stated that it was designed “to avoid any
further litigation and controversy and to settle and
compromise fully any and all claims and issues that have
been raised, or could have been raised, arising out of the
[a]ppellant’s employment with the Postal Service.” S.A. 39.
However, the settlement agreement expressly excluded
certain claims from the settlement, including two injury
compensation matters: “(1) the Notice of Recurrence, dated
June 4, 2018, which [the] [a]ppellant filed with the
Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs [“OWCP”] and (2) the Limited Duty Job Offer,
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix
attached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 24-1683 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

PERKINS v. USPS 3
dated September 24, 2018.” S.A. 40–41.2 Finally, the
agreement provided that the written document
“constitutes the full and complete agreement between the
[p]arties and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements
or understandings between the [p]arties pertaining to the
subject matter hereof.” Id. at 41. On October 22, 2018, the
Board issued an initial decision dismissing Ms. Perkins’
appeal pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.
On November 24, 2018, the dismissal became final.
On December 22, 2018, Ms. Perkins petitioned the
Board, this time alleging that the Postal Service had
breached the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement by
contacting the OWCP about her pending case. The Board
construed Ms. Perkins’ complaint to have alleged “that the
agency’s injury compensation office did not have the right
to speak to [the] OWCP about her pending case.” S.A. 11.
The Board found that there was no provision in the
settlement agreement that would preclude the agency from
contacting the OWCP and that the agreement expressly
stated that “neither parties’ rights concerning the [OWCP
claim] would [] be affected in any way.” Id. The Board
concluded that Ms. Perkins had “failed to prove that the
agency breached the settlement agreement.” Id.
This petition for review followed. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
We must affirm a Board decision unless it is “(1)
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
2 The settlement also excluded “the McConnell class
action,” providing that the rights of both parties were in no
way affected by the settlement agreement. Id. at 41. This
reference is unclear, but it does not appear to be relevant
to this appeal.
Case: 24-1683 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

PERKINS v. USPS 4
procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
U.S.C. § 7703(c).
The construction of a settlement agreement “is a
question of law which this court reviews de novo.” Conant
v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 255 F.3d. 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“In order to prevail, [the appellant] must show material
non-compliance by the agency with the terms of the
settlement agreement.” Lutz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 485 F.3d
1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When interpreting a
settlement agreement, “[w]e begin our review with an
interpretation of the express terms and plain meaning of
the settlement agreement.” Lanclos v. United States, 40
F.4th 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
On petition for review, Ms. Perkins alleged that the
Postal Service breached the agreement by communicating
with the OWCP, thus delaying her workers’ compensation
claim.
The Postal Service did not breach the settlement
agreement. The agreement expressly excludes “two injury
compensation matters” and “accordingly[,] the rights of
[a]ppellant and of the [a]gency are in no way affected by
the settlement agreement.” S.A. 40–41. The agreement
cannot be read to bar the Postal Service from contacting
the OWCP regarding Ms. Perkins’ outstanding claim since
that claim was expressly excluded from the settlement
agreement.
Ms. Perkins also alleged for the first time in her reply
brief that “not receiving a tax-free settlement . . . is a
breach of the settlement agreement.” Appellant’s Inf.
Reply Br. 3. She complained that, on January 25, 2021, the
IRS issued Ms. Perkins a Notice of Deficiency showing a
$10,000 difference in her reported income and stating that
she owed $1,200 in taxes on that difference.
Case: 24-1683 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

PERKINS v. USPS 5
The settlement agreement unambiguously stated that
“[a]ppellant and her representative understand and agree
that the question of tax liability is a matter to be resolved
solely between [the] [a]ppellant and the IRS.” S.A. 40. Ms.
Perkins alleged that, before the settlement agreement was
executed, there were conversations in which the
government represented that the $10,000 payment would
be tax-free, and that the government had an obligation to
abide by this oral agreement despite the express terms of
the agreement. The settlement explains that the
agreement “constitutes the full and complete agreement
between the [p]arties and fully supersedes any and all prior
agreements or understandings.” S.A. 41. We cannot
rewrite the agreement to include provisions not set forth in
the written instrument. See Tiburzi v. Dep’t of Just., 269
F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[A]n integration clause
by definition disposes of prior ‘oral agreements[] . . . .’”).
Because the Postal Service was free to contact the
OWCP and the agreement did not provide that Ms. Perkins
would receive the settlement amount free of tax liability,
the Board properly concluded that the Postal Service did
not breach the settlement agreement.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1683 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2024

-- 5 of 5 --