01a02086
06-07-2000
Douglas McGhee, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Douglas McGhee, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A02086
) Agency No. 1F901012499
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On January 3, 2000, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from an agency decision dated December 21, 1999.<1> In the decision,
the agency found that it was in compliance with the terms of the May 17,
1999 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Management will continue to investigate the idea proposal submitted
by the complainant regarding mule/forklift brake drums. Management will
bring closure to this matter by either denying or adopting the proposal
once the investigation is completed. If the proposal is not adopted an
explanation will be given. Closure to the complainant's proposal will
occur by June 11, 1999; and
(2) Management will continue to review and consider all individuals for
the award program. The complainant will be treated equally as other
prospective award recipients which include job performance, safety,
and attendance;
By letter to the agency dated July 2, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and he requested
that the agency specifically implement the terms of the agreement.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to deny or adopt
his proposal by June 11, 1999, and failed to properly process the award
recommendation.
In its December 21, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that the agency
conducted an investigation concerning complainant's idea proposal
and made a decision pursuant to the settlement agreement. The agency
acknowledged that the assigned supervisor did not render a decision
about the proposal on June 11, 1999, because he was on jury duty until
June 17, 1999. Also, the agency found that the agency considered all
individuals for the awards program.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 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).
According to the Commission's case precedent, when an agency has
committed, in good faith, a technical breach of a provision of the
agreement which did not undermine its purpose or effect, the agency has
substantially complied with the settlement agreement. See e.g., Baron
v. Dept. of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05930277 (September 30, 1993)
(Two-week delay in transfer of official and letter of regret rather
than letter of apology found to be substantial compliance); Ramirez
v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC [PAGE 5] Request No. 05930283 (August 12,
1993) (Substantial compliance found notwithstanding dispute over manner
in which overtime opportunities required under agreement were granted).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that the agency has
substantially complied with the terms of the agreement. Although the
record reflects that the agency did not comply with the deadline in
the agreement (when the assigned supervisor did not deny or accept
complainant's proposal by June 11, 1999), the record also reflects
that the assigned supervisor was on jury duty at that time. Once the
supervisor returned to the agency, he ruled on the proposal within six
days of the deadline. Thus, the agency has since complied with the
terms of the agreement. The complainant has not shown that the agency
undermined the purpose or effect of the agreement. The Commission
finds that it would serve no useful purpose to remand this case for
reinstatement of the underlying complaint.
In addition, the Commission finds that complainant has not shown that the
agency did not review and consider all individuals for the award program.
The assigned supervisor investigated and ruled on complainant's proposal.
While the supervisor did not recommend complainant for an award, the
agency did review and consider complainant for the award program.
Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
June 7, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date 1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in
the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where
applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,
may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.