Rhonda A. Mayfield, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 11, 2002
01A14643_r (E.E.O.C. Sep. 11, 2002)

01A14643_r

09-11-2002

Rhonda A. Mayfield, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Rhonda A. Mayfield v. United States Postal Service

01A14643

September 11, 2002

.

Rhonda A. Mayfield,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A14643

Agency No. 4-I-630-0122-01

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision by the agency dated July 10, 2001, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of a June 7, 2001 settlement agreement. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

The June 7, 2001 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) A selection will be made from vacancy announcement 00.073 of the

applicants that �best meets� the position description within 30 days; and

Selection will come from the applicants previously recommended by the

review committee.

On July 9, 2001, complainant alleged that the agency breached the

settlement agreement, and requested that the agency reinstate her

underlying complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency

failed to select an applicant for vacancy announcement 00.073 within

thirty days after the execution of the agreement, because the selection

was not effective until July 28, 2001.<1>

In its final decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach

the agreement. The agency found that it made its selection for the

vacancy announcement 00.073 on July 5, 2001, which was finally approved

by District Management on July 9, 2001, satisfying its obligation under

the agreement.

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. 0 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).

The Commission notes that while the instant settlement agreement specifies

a time frame for compliance, we have held that the failure to satisfy a

time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent a finding

of substantial compliance of its terms, especially when all required

actions were subsequently completed. Lazarte v. Department of the

Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (April 25, 1996). The record reveals

that in a letter dated July 16, 2001, the agency notified complainant of

her selection to the position of Labor Relations Specialist, EAS-17,

Vacancy Announcement 00.073, effective July 28, 2001. On appeal,

complainant argues that the agency breached the settlement agreement

because the effective date of her selection is beyond the promised

thirty-day period. However, the Commission determines that the agency

substantially complied with the terms of the agreement when a selection

was made on July 5, 2001, and was officially approved on July 9, 2001.

Moreover, the settlement agreement does not indicate that the effective

date of the selection would occur within thirty days of the execution

of the settlement agreement. We AFFIRM the agency's finding that it

has not breached the settlement agreement.

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

September 11, 2002

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

_______________________

1We note that on appeal, complainant makes reference to another complaint

filed July 23, 2001 (Agency No. 4-I-630-0141-01). The record indicates

that the agency is currently processing this complaint and has not issued

a final decision or granted appeal rights for this matter. Consequently,

complainant's appeal of this matter is premature. When the agency has

taken final action on that complaint, the agency will provide appeal

rights to the Commission, and at that time, complainant may file a new

appeal with the Commission.