01A10642_r
02-26-2002
Alfred B. Charles, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Alfred B. Charles v. United States Postal Service
01A10642
February 26, 2002
.
Alfred B. Charles,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10642
Agency No. 4A-0700289-88
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated September 20, 2000, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the October 20, 1999 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[S1/S2] have put in training requests for three classes: IJP, TNT and
Analytical Troubleshooting. [Complainant] will make every effort to
attend any training program he is scheduled for. [S1] agrees to refrain
from discussing any training concerns relating to [complainant] with
any other staff.
[S1/S2] will address [complainant] in the same manner that they address
other employees - with courtesy [and] respect.
Both parties will make every effort to communicate clearly to prevent
misunderstandings in the future.
[S1/S2] will rotate [complainant] to work with experienced employees in
the following areas: OCR, AFCS, PSDS and SYWB. When there are problems
on the machines, [complainant] will take initiative and get involved.
Prior official ("Discussion") will be removed from [complainant's] file,
original decision will remain.
By letter to the agency dated April 6, 2000, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency reinstate his complaint. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency failed to comply with provisions 2, 3, 4 and
5 of the settlement agreement when the agency cancelled complainant's
IJP course after complainant requested to be transferred to New York .
Complainant further alleged that as of April 6, 2000, he had not been
rotated to work on the OCR, AFCS, POSDS or SYWB.
In its September 20, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that the agency
had not breached the terms of the settlement agreement arguing in part
that complainant's requested transfer to New York was granted and became
effective July 15, 2000, therefore training complainant would be a waste
of money and the agency would have to train another employee on IJP.
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 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).
Provision 2
The Commission finds that the plain language of this provision does
not bind the agency to train complainant. Rather, this provision binds
complainant to attend the training requested for him. Therefore, we find
that complainant has failed to show how the agency breached provision
2 of the settlement agreement.
Provisions 3 and 4
We find these provisions of the settlement agreement are too vague to
be enforced. Therefore, we find that complainant has failed to show
how the agency breached provisions 3 and 4 of the agreement.
Provision 5
We note that complainant has, since the execution of the settlement
agreement, transferred to a new duty station and that he is no longer
supervised by either S1 or S2. Accordingly, the previous circumstances
have changed and thus the agency's performance due under this provision
is no longer required.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's decision finding no breach of the
settlement agreement.
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
February 26, 2002
__________________
Date