01A35316
02-19-2004
Terron Ferguson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Terron Ferguson v. United States Postal Service
01A35316
February 19, 2004
.
Terron Ferguson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A35316
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision, issued on August 29, 2003, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the April 2, 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) [Complainant] and the [agency] agree that [complainant] will
receive a letter scheduling him for a new medical assessment process.
The parties understand and agree that the Postal medical doctor may
request [complainant] provide updated medical information to assist in
making his medical assessment.
(2) Contingent upon [complainant] being found medically suitable, the
parties agree [complainant] will be placed back on the list of suitable
applicants in hiring worksheet and score order.
(3) The parties agree that [complainant] may request reinstatement at
any post office of his choosing within the Long Beach District.
(4) The agency stipulates that between the period of 5/1/02 to present
that there was only one career custodian hired at the Marina Processing
and Distribution Center.
By letter to the agency dated July 7, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that "[p]er a verbal agreement made by [A],
[complainant], [C], and [D], any such finding of [complainant's]
medical physical were to be forwarded to him along with any copies and
documentation." According to complainant, the relevant documents were
to be mailed to him within thirty days.
The agency issued a decision finding that it was in compliance with the
terms of the April 2, 2003 settlement agreement. The agency stated that
no verbal agreement was created, and that anything agreed to was written
in the settlement agreement. Further, the agency noted that complainant
underwent a new Medical Assessment Process (MAP) on April 14, 2003 and
remains on the hiring list.
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, complainant appears to contend that the agency
breached a "verbal agreement" requiring the agency to forward to him
any findings from his medical physical. A review of the April 2,
2003 settlement agreement shows that the forwarding of documents to the
complainant was not addressed by the parties. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.603 provides that �[a]ny settlement reached shall be in writing and
signed by both parties and shall identify the claims resolved.� The
Commission has upheld the validity of a settlement agreement entered
into orally in one type of situation - during a hearing before an EEO
Administrative Judge where the hearing transcript evidenced the agreement.
See Acree v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05900784 (October
4, 1990). Here, complainant indicates that the "verbal agreement" was
made between three agency officials and himself. There is no indication
that the purported agreement was entered during a hearing. Consequently,
we do not find that the agency was obligated to forward documents to
the complainant. If complainant wanted such action to occur he should
have reduced his intentions to writing.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach 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
February 19, 2004
__________________
Date