01A45272_r
11-29-2004
Craig L. Marshall, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Craig L. Marshall v. United States Postal Service
01A45272
November 29, 2004
.
Craig L. Marshall,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A45272
Agency No. 4F-907-0048-97
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
final decision, dated July 13, 2004, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of a March 1, 2004 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The March 1, 2004 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) To settle all claims of damages, the Postal Service shall pay
complainant the lump sum of $30,000.00, representing compensatory damages.
There shall be no withholding from this payment, although it is understood
between the parties that this payment is subject to taxation and will be
reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Complainant understands that it
will take approximately eight weeks for payment to be accomplished after
postal counsel's receipt of this fully executed settlement agreement.
Payment should be mailed to [complainant at his address of record].
By letter to the agency dated June 3, 2004, complainant alleged that the
agency breached the settlement agreement. Complainant requested �interest
reflecting the delay� as well as �sanctions.� Complainant indicated that
the sanctions should include adoption of an Administrative Judge's draft
decision, as the agency's final decision. Complainant alleged that the
agency failed to provide payment �in approximately 8 weeks� of receipt
of the agreement. According to complainant, �when the 8-week deadline
passed,� he inquired into the status of his payment and learned that the
payment had not been processed. Complainant noted that he eventually
received the check, on May 25, 2004, but that the agency's delay was
�deliberate, malicious, and done in bad faith.�
In its decision of July 13, 2004, the agency stated that on May 7, 2004,
one week after the approximated eight weeks indicated in the agreement,
Labor Relations processed the payment with instructions to mail payment
to the Lynwood Post Office. The agency stated that the check was
then forwarded to complainant's home address by the Lynwood Postmaster,
and received by complainant on May 24, 2004. The agency acknowledges
that there was approximately a four-week delay, but reiterates that
complainant did receive the $30,000.00 payment.
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).
In the instant case, the settlement agreement requires the agency to �pay
complainant the lump sum of $30,000.00" Further, the agreement states
that �[c]omplainant understands that it will take approximately eight
weeks for payment to be accomplished after postal counsel's receipt of
this fully executed settlement agreement.� The settlement language did
not create a specific �deadline,� as claimed by complainant. Further,
complainant admits receipt of payment on or about May 25, 2004, only
weeks after the eight-week approximation set forth in the agreement.
Therefore, we find that the agency complied with the settlement agreement
provision, within a reasonable amount of time.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach was proper and
is AFFIRMED.
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
November 29, 2004
__________________
Date