01a44514
04-28-2005
Alexander Medrano, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Alexander Medrano v. United States Postal Service
01A44514
April 28, 2005
.
Alexander Medrano,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44514 Agency Nos. 4G-770-0070-02, 4G-770-0793-01
DECISION
The record reveals that on November 28, 2001, complainant and the agency
entered into a settlement agreement regarding complainant's EEO complaint.
The settlement provided in pertinent part as follows:
The parties agreed on the Redress settlement that [Complainant] will
receive a platform to stand on while casing the mail in the performance
of his duties. In addition he will receive new class labels with the
proper color code for casing the mail. The Address Management Service
Office was contacted on 11-28-01 to replace the labels.
By letter dated December 21, 2001, complainant requested that his
complaint be reinstated. Complainant stated that the settlement
agreement had not been put into effect. According to complainant,
he was told that he would have new labels in three days, but he still
did not have new labels after more than a month. Complainant further
stated that on November 28, 2001, he was denied representation during
his mediation and he felt pressured to continue without representation
and did so to his regret. Complainant claimed that the mediation
was scheduled on the representative's non-scheduled day and that the
denial of representation was a denial of disability accommodation.
Additionally, complainant claimed that the mediation was held on two
issues, but one issue was not addressed. Complainant stated that on
December 21, 2001, he was denied a 1260, thus forcing him to work on his
EEO complaint during his lunch time. Complainant further claimed that
he was denied EEO representation from November 28, 2001 to December 21,
2001, and that his EEO complaints were delayed because they were heard
more than 60 days from his initial request for counseling.
By decision dated January 23, 2004, the agency determined that it had not
breached the settlement agreement. The agency stated that an inquiry was
conducted into complainant's claim of breach. According to the agency,
the Station Manager stated that complainant received his case labels and
a platform shortly after the mediation. With regard to the matters that
complainant raised concerning the EEO process, the agency previously
informed complainant that these issues would need to be addressed as a
separate complaint. Thereafter, complainant filed the instant appeal.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
Initially, we shall address the issues that complainant raised concerning
the EEO process insofar as they challenge the validity of the settlement
agreement. Complainant claims that he did not enter into the settlement
agreement voluntarily or knowingly. We find that complainant has not
established that his execution of the settlement agreement was either
involuntary or unknowing. Complainant also has not established that
he was coerced to enter into the settlement agreement or was under any
form of duress. We find that complainant has not submitted sufficient
argument or evidence to warrant a finding that the settlement agreement
should be declared invalid.
Complainant contended that the agency breached the settlement agreement by
not providing new labels more than a month after the settlement agreement
was executed. Upon review of the settlement agreement, we observe that
the agreement provided that complainant would receive new class labels
with the proper color code for casing the mail. The agency determined
in its final action that complainant received both the case labels
and a platform shortly after the settlement agreement was executed.
Complainant has not submitted an argument on appeal that refutes the
agency's position. We find that complainant has not established that
the agency breached the settlement agreement.
Therefore, the agency's decision finding no breach of the November 28,
2001 settlement agreement 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
April 28, 2005
__________________
Date