01a06026
01-24-2001
Carlos W. Rudas v. United States Postal Service 01A06026 January 24, 2001 . Carlos W. Rudas, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Carlos W. Rudas v. United States Postal Service
01A06026
January 24, 2001
.
Carlos W. Rudas,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A06026
Agency No. 1A-007-0001-00
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed the agency's decision not to reinstate his
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination that the parties had
settled. The record indicates that complainant, a Supervisor District
Operator, EAS-16, San Juan Postal Facility (GMF), filed an informal
complaint on September 30, 1999, concerning the denial of promotions,
detail offers, and other advancement opportunities. On January 4, 2000,
during a mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement,
which provided, in pertinent part, that:
Complainant will consider any equitable upward mobility opportunity
pending his approval and acceptance of request in Puerto Rico or abroad;
The manager of the Human Resources Offices at GPO San Juan will make
every effort to contact those specific locations in search of available
detail openings suitable to complainant and will keep him duly informed
of such efforts; and
Complainant's supervisor agrees to authorize complainant's release from
his present position as soon as the transfer request is approved by the
accepting district.
By letters dated June 6 and 19, 2000, complainant alleged that the agency
breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant indicated
that he applied for two Postmaster, EAS-20, vacancies in Barceloneta
and Aguas Buena, San Juan, but was not selected for the position.
On August 11, 2000, the agency issued a decision finding that it did not
breach the settlement agreement when complainant was not selected for
the Postmaster vacancies. Specifically, the agency indicated that the
settlement agreement did not involve any guarantees of a non-competitive
placement into Postmaster positions.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504 provides that if the complainant
believes that the agency failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, the complainant should notify the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement
agreement, within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that
the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,
alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing
from the point processing ceased.
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 Commission has held that settlement agreements are contracts between
the complainant 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 addition, the
Commission generally follows the rule that if a 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 v. Building Engineering Services,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). The Commission has followed this rule
when interpreting settlement agreements. The Commission's policy in
this regard is based on the premise that the face of the agreement best
reflects the understanding of the parties.
In the instant case, complainant alleged that the agency breached the
settlement agreement at issue when he was not promoted to a Postmaster,
EAS-20, position in April 2000. However, the settlement agreement merely
provides for any equitable upward mobility opportunity consideration
for complainant. As the agency stated in its decision, the settlement
agreement does not specifically provide for, nor guarantee, complainant's
promotion to a Postmaster position. Thus, the Commission finds that
the alleged matter is beyond the scope of the terms of the settlement
agreement. It is noted that complainant does not claim that the agency
failed to comply with the remaining terms of the settlement agreement,
i.e., concerning his detail and/or transfer opportunities.
In addition, with regard to complainant's reprisal claim on appeal,
the Commission finds that the matter should be processed as a
separate complaint under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106 rather than as a claim of
noncompliance with a settlement agreement. Complainant is hereby advised
to contact an EEO Counselor with regard to this matter if he wishes to
further pursue the matter. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.101(b) and 1614.105(a).
Accordingly, the agency's decision not to reinstate the settled matters
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
January 24, 2001
__________________
Date