01A31186_r
04-28-2003
Narinder S. Samra, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Narinder S. Samra v. United States Postal Service
01A31186
April 28, 2003
.
Narinder S. Samra,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31186
Agency No. 1F-956-1067-96
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision
by the agency dated November 19, 2002, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the November 1, 2002 settlement agreement into which
the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2) The Agency will issue a check in the amount of $25,000 with
no deductions. The check will be made payable to [complainant].
This check is for compensable damages (pain and suffering).
3) Agency will issue a check in the amount of $361,470.31 with standard
deductions made payable to [complainant], to be forwarded within
approximately 45 days of acceptance of this agreement. This check
represents back pay, lost overtime, interest on back pay and overtime, pay
for accrued annual leave and sick leave, health benefits reimbursement,
and life insurance reimbursement.
By letter to the agency dated November 14, 2002, complainant alleged,
through attorney A1, that the agreement was never fully explained to him,
that he was not represented by an attorney at the time of the settlement,
and that complainant was "taken aback by the tax implications of this
agreement." Complainant requested that, at a minimum, the payment of
$361,470.31 be postponed until the beginning of the next year so that
he could avoid the "disastrous and unanticipated tax consequences" of
the agreement. Complainant stated that he was exercising his right to
reject the agreement.
In its November 19, 2002 Letter of Determination, the agency concluded
that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, two checks had been issued to
complainant for the agreed amounts, and sent to complainant by certified
mail. The agency noted that complainant had not claimed the certified
mail, but nevertheless, the agency fulfilled its obligations. The agency
further found that in addition to complainant's signature, the settlement
agreement was signed by a representative from the National Association
of Letter Carriers (NALC) on complainant's behalf. Accordingly, the
agency determined that no breach of the settlement agreement occurred.
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, we find the agency has not breached provisions 2
and 3 of the settlement agreement. The record discloses that complainant
refused delivery of three certified letters which were returned to
the agency. The record also contains copies of an agency check dated
November 8, 2002, in the amount of $243,897.69, which is accompanied
by a statement describing deductions in the amount of $117,572.62; and
an agency check dated November 7, 2002, in the amount of $25,000.00.
Finally, the Commission notes the record contains a letter from attorney
A1, dated December 18, 2002, acknowledging his receipt of the two checks
described herein. A1 stated that, pursuant to complainant's directions,
he was returning the two checks to the agency. A1 further stated that
he no longer represented complainant in this matter. We therefore find
that no breach of the settlement agreement has occurred.
The Commission reminds the agency that it still is under an obligation
to comply with provisions 2 and 3 of the settlement agreement. However,
complainant is advised that if he continues to refuse acceptance of
payments due to him under the settlement agreement, the agency may be
excused from further compliance with provisions 2 and 3 of the agreement.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's determination that no breach of the
settlement agreement occurred.
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
April 28, 2003
__________________
Date