01984011
04-18-2001
Dennis A. Young, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Dennis A. Young v. United States Postal Service (Southeast Area)
01984011
April 18, 2001
.
Dennis A. Young,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01984011
Agency No. 1-H-321-1144-95
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The
appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged
that he was discriminated against on the bases of race (Caucasian),
disability (knee injury), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when he
received an assignment order returning him to Tour 1 effective June
10, 1995, after having been sent to Tour 3 from Tour 1 only a few days
earlier. For the following reasons, the Commission DISMISSES the appeal.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Distribution Clerk, PS-5, at the agency's Jacksonville, Florida,
General Mail Facility. Believing he was a victim of discrimination,
complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on August 17, 1995. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant was informed of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by
the agency. Complainant initially requested a hearing, but then withdrew
that request on November 3, 1997, opting instead for a FAD on the merits.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of discrimination on any basis, but that, in any event,
the agency had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
the re-assignment back to Tour 1, i.e., that complainant had objected
to the assignment to Tour 3.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency's articulated reason
for re-assigning him back to Tour 1, his supposed objection to being
assigned to Tour 3, was a complete fabrication on the agency's part.
He insists that he was �all too happy� to be assigned to Tour 3, but
was then harassed by the agency by being forced to move back to Tour 1.
The agency did not reply to complainant's argument on appeal.
The Commission need not decide whether complainant was discriminated
against in being re-assigned back to Tour 1, inasmuch as he signed a
settlement agreement with the agency on March 11, 1998, which stated that
it was a �full and complete settlement of all outstanding administrative
complaints or appeals,� specifically including EEO complaints, �relating
to any matters that occurred prior to the execution of this settlement
agreement.� In this regard, complainant was re-assigned to Tour
1 effective June 10, 1995, almost three years before he signed the
settlement agreement.
The Commission has previously held that settlement agreements are
contracts between complainant and the agency and that it is the intent
of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not some unexpressed
intention, which controls the contract's construction. Herrington
v. Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC Request
No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996) (face of the agreement best reflects
the understanding of the parties); Eggleston v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). Furthermore,
in interpreting settlement agreements, the Commission has applied the
contract principle known as the �plain meaning rule,� which hold that
where a writing is unambiguous on its facts, its meaning is determined
from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic
evidence. Klein v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC
Request No. 05940033 (June 30, 1994); Brown v. Department of Commerce,
EEOC Request No. 05921059 (June 24, 1993).
Applying the contract principles outlined above, the Commission concludes
that the complainant, as a result of the executed settlement agreement,
unambiguously intended to give up all claims represented by the present
complaint in return for the execution of the agreement. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, we DISMISS the appeal.
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
April 18, 2001
Date