Dennis D. Davey, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 25, 1998
01981141 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 25, 1998)

01981141

11-25-1998

Dennis D. Davey, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Dennis D. Davey v. United States Postal Service

01981141

November 25, 1998

Dennis D. Davey, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01981141

v. ) Agency No. 1F-921-0001-97

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision not to reinstate

his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination that the parties

had settled. See 29 C.F.R. ��1614.402, .504(b); EEOC Order No. 960,

as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached the settlement

agreement.

BACKGROUND

A review of the record reveals that appellant filed a formal EEO complaint

on November 4, 1996, alleging that he had been subjected to unlawful

discrimination on the basis of sex (male). The agency initially accepted

appellant's complaint for processing, and conducted an investigation.

Prior to a hearing being held, appellant and the agency settled the

complaint on July 2, 1997. The settlement agreement provided, in

pertinent part, that:

In settling this complaint, the following is agreed to:

As operationally feasible [appellant] will be allowed to work his job

assignment #8647278 Operation 030/040 and will not be displaced from his

bid assignment by employees who do not hold a bid on those operations.

By letter to the agency dated July 29, 1997, appellant alleged that the

agency had breached the settlement agreement and that the breach was

retaliatory. Appellant asserted that on July 16-18 and 22-24, 1997,

management placed non-bid employees in appellant's job assignment,

thus forcing appellant to work outside of his bid assignment.

In its final decision dated October 24, 1997, the agency declined to

reinstate appellant's complaint, finding that it had not breached the

settlement agreement. In a letter dated September 29, 1997, the agency

asserted that subsequent to appellant's allegation of breach, his manager

and supervisor were provided copies of the settlement agreement for the

first time. Thereafter, the agency contended that it was in compliance

with the agreement.

On appeal, appellant contends that he was also displaced from his bid

assignment on at least twenty (20) other occasions between July 29,

1997 and September 17, 1997. Further, appellant disputes the agency's

failure to process allegations that the breach actions were taken in

retaliation for his prior EEO activity.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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. In addition, 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).

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b), an agency has 35 days from the

receipt of an appellant's allegation of breach to resolve the matter.

The Commission interprets that provision to mean that an agency has 35

days within which to cure any breach that has occurred. See Covington

v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01912311 (September 30, 1991). In the instant

case, the record indicates that appellant was not displaced from his

bid assignment after he submitted allegations of breach. We find,

therefore, that although the agency was in breach of the agreement,

it took the necessary steps to cure that breach within the requisite

time provided by 29 C.F.R. �1614. Consequently, the agency's decision

not to reinstate appellant's prior complaint was proper.

Finally, we note that appellant alleged that the breach actions were

taken to retaliate against him for pursuing the EEO process. We note,

however, that breach allegations are not processed as new complaints,

but rather in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.504. Consequently, we

find that the agency properly addressed appellant's concerns in terms

of a breach allegation and not as a new allegation of discrimination.

See McGrath v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05920890 (January 21, 1993).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision not to reinstate appellant's complaint

is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

November 25, 1998

______________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations