01a02124
06-21-2000
Bobby Williams, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Bobby Williams, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A02124
) Agency No. 4F900040999
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency decision dated December 17, 1999,
which found that the agency was in compliance with the terms of the August
19, 1999 settlement agreement, is proper pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to
as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).<1>
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
the agency agrees to pay complainant for 6 hours of work;
(2) a policy of dignity and respect will be posted for all employees to
see . . . . Also, an agency official will give a stand-up talk about
this policy. She will be joined by the Chief Union Steward of the
Sanford Station in this agreement; and
. . .
(4) the agency will reimburse complainant for the amount of the $350 he
is not reimbursed by his insurance company.
By letter to the agency dated September 13, 1999, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and he
requested that the agency specifically implement the agreement's terms.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to pay him
for the 6 hours of work, to post the policy about dignity and respect,
to have a stand-up talk about dignity and respect, and to reimburse him
the $350.
In its December 17, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it was in
compliance with the agreement. The agency found that it had completed
the paperwork so that complainant would receive the 6 hours of work,
that the policy on workplace dignity and respect was posted, that the
agency official and Chief Union Steward had conducted the stand-up talk,
and that it requested documentation of the amount that the insurance
company did not reimburse complainant.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
After a careful review, we determine that the agency did not violate
the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement did
not provide a time frame in which the agency had to comply with the
four provisions. In circumstances where the parties could have agreed
upon specific time frames but did not do so, the Commission has held
that compliance with the provisions of the agreement is required within
a reasonable amount of time. Gomez v. Department of Treasury, EEOC
Request No. 05930921.
In this case, the Commission finds that the agency completed the paperwork
in December 1999, to credit complainant with 6 hours of work, that the
agency posted the policy on workplace dignity and respect in October 1999,
and that the agency official held the stand-up talk on December 7, 1999.
Also, the Commission finds that on October 21, 1999, the agency requested
information from complainant regarding the portion of his $350 medical
bill not paid by the insurance company so that it could comply with the
last provision of the agreement. Considering these facts, the Commission
finds that the agency did not take an unreasonable amount of time to
fulfill its obligations. Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
June 21, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where
applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,
may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.