01A42599_r
06-16-2004
Richard H. Goins, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Richard H Goins v. United States Postal Service
01A42599
June 16, 2004
.
Richard H. Goins,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42599
Agency No. 1G761015903
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
agency decision (FAD) by the agency dated December 8, 2003, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the September 25, 2003 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) [Supervisor] will take a course in interpersonal skills by December
30, 2003.
(2) [Supervisor] will not create an unnecessary and unacceptable level
of stress in the workplace.
By letter to the agency dated October 24, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the supervisor had not taken the course described above.
Complainant also alleged that the supervisor continues to create an
unnecessary and unacceptable level of stress in the workplace and that
she continues to exhibit mannerisms of intimidation and inappropriate
behavior towards her subordinates.
In its December 8, 2003 FAD, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement had not been breached. Specifically, the agency determined
the supervisor had taken three management courses and had not been
assigned to complainant's work area for some time, and therefore, has
had no interaction with him.
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, a review of the record indicates that the Supervisor
has taken three courses since the signing of the settlement agreement:
Business Communication That Works (3 hours) take October 24, 2003
You Can Manage (.5 hours) take October 25, 2003
3. Creating a Positive Image (1.5 hours) taken October 26, 2003.
Based on this evidence, we find that the Supervisor has completed
the course requirements by the date specified, and stipulation (1)
of the settlement agreement has been met. In reference to the second
stipulation of the settlement agreement, we find that it would be
virtually impossible to define or measure the level of stress that is
�unnecessary� or �unacceptable� under the terms of the agreement and,
therefore, stipulation (2) is too vague to be enforced.
For the reasons stated above, we find no breach of the settlement
agreement has occurred. The agency has submitted documentation regarding
the supervisor's attendance at three courses regarding interpersonal
skills. We further find stipulation (2) is too vague to be enforced
so no breach of stipulation (2) has occurred. Accordingly, the final
agency decision is 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
_June 16, 2004_________________
Date