01A41126_r
03-09-2004
Carleton Hoffman, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Carleton Hoffman v. United States Postal Service
01A41126
March 9, 2004
.
Carleton Hoffman,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A41126
Agency No. 4F-940-0107-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated October 22, 2003, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of a July 25, 2002 settlement agreement.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
The July 25, 2002 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. In an effort to improve communications, management will continue to
post PTR workhour sheets for employee review.<1>
By letter dated September 5, 2003, complainant alleged that the agency
breached provision 1. Specifically, complainant alleged that he was
unable to locate the PTR workhour sheet on the bulletin board.
In its October 22, 2003 final decision, the agency found no breach,
noting that a Manager stated that the settlement agreement was honored.
The agency further determined that the Manager acknowledged that there
were no hours posted during the first week of September 2003, and that
upon notice, the agency undertook action to post the hours immediately;
and now that he was aware of the problem, he would monitor it.
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 O 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).
The record in this case reflects that upon notice of the hours not being
posted during the first week of September 2003, the agency undertook
actions to post the hours immediately. The record contains a copy of the
e-mail correspondence from an agency Manager, dated September 8, 2003,
concerning complainant's breach claim. In his e-mail correspondence,
the Manager stated that there were no hours posted during the first week
of September 2003, but that the hours were posted immediately, and that
the situation was now being monitored by him. To the extent that the
agency breached provision 1, the Commission determines that the agency
cured any such breach.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's finding that it complied with
provision 1 of the instant 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
March 9, 2004
__________________
Date
1The settlement agreement also provides for management to consult
with NALC representative before implementation of new procedures and
practices; that management would review the workhours allocated to
PTR's on the "Extra Work List," from May 1, 2002, to ascertain that
favoritism has not been shown in distribution of extra work, and the
results will be reviewed with complainant; and that if discrepancies in
relation to complainant's workhours are found to be due to favoritism,
then complainant's workhours would be made up during the next extra work
quarter 9/1/02-12/31/02, or as otherwise agreed. These provisions are
not at issue in the instant appeal.