0120062471
09-19-2007
Jahmaal Muhammad, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jahmaal Muhammad,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120062471
Agency No. 1-D-273-0003-00
DECISION1
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency, dated February 6, 2006, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the November 21, 2001 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will be paid a lump sum payment of $750.00;
(2) Parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement,
by stipulating their intent that it not be cited in future forums.2
By letter to the agency dated December 1, 2005, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the complaint be reinstated. Specifically, complainant alleged
that the agency left the Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status letter,
dated December 31, 1996, in his Official Personnel File (OPF), and thus
continued to violate his "rights in the same exact manor which they did
in the complaint [] allegedly settled."3 Letter to Office of Compliance
and Appeals from Complainant, dated January 20, 2006.
In its February 6, 2006 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed
to establish that the agency breached the agreement because complainant
received the lump sum payment per the agreement, and the confidentiality
of the agreement had been maintained. The agency further asserted
that complainant failed to respond or provide specific information
regarding the alleged breach per the agency's request for clarification.
But see Letter to Office of Compliance and Appeals from Complainant,
dated January 20, 2006.
Thereafter, complainant filed the present appeal in which he asserts
that he did respond to the agency's request for specific information.
Moreover, he explains that, on November 3, 2005, he found in his OPF the
Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status letter, dated December 31, 1996.
He requests that the Commission find a breach of the agreement inasmuch
as the aforesaid letter remained in his OPF for approximately four years
after the agreement was signed to resolve his complaint. Supra, fn 2.
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 present case, the Commission finds that complainant failed to show
that the agency breached the agreement as he alleged. The record reveals,
as the agency found, that complainant received a lump sum payment per
the agreement, and the confidentiality of the agreement was maintained.
Although complainant has inferred that settlement of the agreement would
require the expungement of the Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status
letter from his OPF, the agreement did not explicitly provide for the
removal of the letter. Indeed, looking at the four corners of the
document, the agreement contains no mention of removing the document.
Therefore, we find that no breach has occurred with respect to the
November 21, 2001 settlement agreement.
The record, however, further reveals that complainant filed a complaint
alleging that the agency discriminated against him when he became
aware that the Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status letter, dated
December 31, 1996, was still in his OPF. Agency No. 4C270001806. In a
decision dated November 2, 2006, the Commission found that the agency's
dismissal of Agency No. 4C270001806 was appropriate because it raised
that same claim that was pending in the present case. This decision was
docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 0120062104 (November 2, 2006). However,
we now find that the claim in Agency No. 4C270001806 constitutes a
separate claim. Therefore, complainant is advised that if he wishes
to pursue his claim as identified in Agency No. 4C270001806, through
the EEO process, he shall initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within
thirty days after he receives this letter.4 The Commission advises the
agency that, if complainant seeks EEO counseling regarding the claim
in Agency No. 4C270001806 within the above thirty-day period, the date
complainant filed Agency No. 4C270001806 shall be deemed to be the date
of the initial EEO contact.5 See Qatsha v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970201 (January 16, 1998).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the agency's FAD, finding that it did not
breach the November 21, 2001 settlement agreement, is hereby 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
___9/19/07_______________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the
above referenced appeal number.
2 On February 11, 2000, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint in
which he claimed that, on October 28, 1999, while reviewing his OPF,
he discovered documentation of discipline taken against him more than
two years before. The agency found that complainant's complaint failed
to state a claim. On January 24, 2001, the Commission remanded the
complaint for further processing, finding that the complaint, in fact,
stated a claim inasmuch as the document should have been removed from
his OPF within two years of its issuance. The subject November 21,
2001 settlement agreement resolved said complaint.
3 The agency requested clarification from complainant regarding the
exact nature of his breach, and in response, complainant mailed a letter
to Office of Compliance and Appeals, dated January 20, 2006, certified
return receipt. The letter was signed as received on January 23, 2006.
4 If complainant chooses to pursue his claim as identified in Agency
No. 4C270001806, he should provide a copy of this decision, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120062471, to the agency to provide clarification regarding
appropriate processing.
5 The Commission notes that the claim in Agency No. 4C270001806 is best
defined as:
Whether the agency discriminated against complainant when he became aware
that the Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status letter, dated December
31, 1996, was still in his OPF more than two years after its issuance.
We further note that the claim as stated does, in fact, state a claim
of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
??
??
??
??
2
0120062471
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120062471