01A13153_r
07-17-2001
Virginia M. Flores, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Virginia M. Flores v. United States Postal Service
01A13153
July 17, 2001
.
Virginia M. Flores,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13153
Agency No. 1F-937-0051-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated March 14, 2001, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the December 6, 2000 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:
�I agree to settle for 2 days of annual leave at management and employees
agreed upon date.�
By letter to the agency dated February 26, 2001, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency reinstate the processing of her discrimination complaint
where processing ceased. Specifically, complainant alleged that she was
instructed to put down �Annual Leave� instead of �Administrative Leave�
in the agreement.
In its March 14, 2001 FAD, the agency argues that the December 6, 2000
settlement agreement states that complainant agreed to settle for two
days of annual leave. The agency further argues that there is no mention
of administrative leave in the agreement.<1>
On appeal, complainant's representative states �It is believed that since
we did not meet in a good faith dispute resolution meeting, we did have
to write the words �annual leave� instead of administrative leave on the
agreement, and that annual leave was not the agreed upon solution (and
common sense would dictate that), that this appeal should be sustained
and sent back to EEO processing, or an attempt to made to resolve the
matter professionally and not underhandedly.�
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 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).
Upon review of the documents in the record submitted by agency and
complainant, the Commission determines that the agency did not breach
the December 6, 2000 settlement agreement. There is no provision in the
subject settlement agreement that dictates that complainant agreed to
settle for two (2) days of administrative leave. Moreover, the record in
devoid of any evidence reflecting that complainant was somehow coerced
into agreeing that the settlement agreement should make reference to
annual leave, instead of to administrative leave.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no settlement breach is
AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M701)
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
July 17, 2001
__________________
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
______________________________
1The agency also notes, and the record reflects, that complainant was
approved one day of annual leave pursuant to the settlement agreement,
on January 16, 2001.