01982257
03-19-1999
Calvin Anderson, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Calvin Anderson v. United States Postal Service
01982257
March 19, 1999
Calvin Anderson, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982257
) Agency No. Numerous
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 13, 1998, appellant filed the instant appeal from the agency's
December 17, 1997 decision rejecting his allegation that the agency had
failed to comply with certain EEO settlement agreements.
II. ISSUE
Whether the agency correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish
noncompliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
III. BACKGROUND
Appellant and the agency entered into two settlement agreements dated
April 16, 1997 and April 17, 1997. These agreements resolved a series
of EEO complaints appellant had filed in 1995, 1996 and 1997.<1>
The principal relief provided to appellant in the agreements was the
agency's promise that 1) records concerning a 14-day suspension would be
expunged from appellant's files; 2) communications between appellant and
agency management would be "of mutual dignity and respect and conducted
in a professional manner;" 3) appellant would receive timely notice of
telephone messages and immediate notice of emergencies; 4) the emergency
notification policy would be discussed in a meeting and in a "policy
letter;" 5) the postmaster would "address[] human relations" at a meeting;
6) management would conduct "a stand-up talk on the proper language usage
in the workplace;" 7) appellant would be "given the opportunity to express
[himself] creatively pertaining to on the job matters."
In addition, the agency agreed to appellant's stipulation that management
not "single me out and check only my PS3996. After a PS3996 has been
negotiated by myself and management, I will be informed of volume
comparisons the next workday."
In a letter to the agency dated May 16, 1997, appellant stated, in
pertinent part, "[the agency] made an agreement with me in writing.
I feel that management have not complied. I would like for my
complaints to be reinstated for further processing to the next level."
Appellant's letter provided no information on particular agency acts of
alleged noncompliance.
In response, the agency wrote to appellant on May 30, 1997 requesting
that he provide specific information to support his allegations of
noncompliance, asking in particular that he indentify the provisions
of the agreements that had been breached, name the persons involved and
their acts of noncompliance and that he state the dates he became aware
of the alleged acts of noncompliance.
By letter dated June 28, 1997, appellant replied, setting forth in
more detail his view of the agency's noncompliance. He specified the
following alleged breaches:
a. He did not receive the promised letter concerning the emergency
notification policy until June 19th or 20th, two months late.
b. He was not treated "with dignity and respect" by Rick Miller, John
Stewart, Bonnie Wilson and Bonnie Eldridge. He was treated unfairly
by Rick Miller.
c. The postmaster promised him a letter or memorandum concerning
profanity in the workplace but never received it.
d. He was interrupted during his lunch break.
e. "Untimeliness of LOW" [letter of warning.]
f. He received a harsher punishment than did another employee for
having a "backing accident."
The agency responded, in a letter dated July 31, 1997, stating that
appellant's June 29, 1997 letter did not provide specific information
supporting appellant's claims of breach and requesting that appellant
respond to specific questions concerning the claims of breach he raised
in his May 20, 1997 letter. The letter warned that if appellant did
not reply with answers within 15 days, the agency would take no action
on his allegation of noncompliance. Appellant did not respond.
By letter dated December 23, 1997, the agency issued its final decision.
It denied appellant's claim of noncompliance on the ground that by
failing to respond to the agency's July 31, 1997 request for additional
information, appellant had violated 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(g) which permits
an agency to dismiss a complaint if a complainant fails to respond to a
request for information within 15 days. In addition, the agency found
that the evidence appellant did provide was inadequate to support his
claim.
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Settlement agreements are contracts between the parties and
it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
and not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's
construction. Eggleston v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05900795 (Aug. 23, 1990). In addition, the Commission generally
follows the rule that if a 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
Talbott v. Dep't of the Air Force, 05950382 (Dec. 19, 1996). As with
any claim before this Commission, appellant has the burden of proof by
a preponderance of the evidence.
The Commission finds that the agency correctly concluded that the
appellant failed to establish noncompliance with the settlement
agreements. Concerning appellant's particular claims of noncompliance,
we find:
Allegation a. The agency did not breach the settlement agreement when
it delivered the letter concerning the emergency notification policy
approximately two months after the settlement agreements were entered
into. The agreements did not specify a period of time within which
the letter was to be produced. Accordingly, the agency was permitted
a reasonable amount of time within which to comply with this provision.
See, Restatement (Second) of Contracts � 204 (1981). Appellant has
produced no evidence to show that the agency's delay in producing the
letter was unreasonable.
Allegation b. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence to support
his claim that he was not treated with "dignity and respect" or that he
was treated "unfairly." The information submitted to the agency contains
no description of the specific acts alleged to have been involved.
Allegations c., d., e., and f. The actions alleged concern matters
outside the scope of the settlement agreements and, even if proven,
would not have violated any term of the settlement agreements.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons we find that the appellant failed to establish
noncompliance with the settlement agreements.<2> Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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.F.R.). 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:
March 19, 1999
____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 The agency numbers of the complaints resolved were as follows:
4G-7201189-96; 4G-7201202-96; 4G-7201203-96; 4G-7200105-97; 4G-7200106-97;
4G-7200108-97; 4G-7200109-97; 4G-7200110-97; 4G-7200016-97; 4G-7200017-97;
4G-7200018-97; 4G-7200019-97; 4G-7200020-97; 4G-7200023-97; 4G-7200067-97;
4G-7200068-97; 4G-7200022-97; 4G-7200021-97; 4G-7200069-97; 4G-7200070-97;
4G-72001192-95; 4G-72001191-95; 4G-72001181-95; 4G-72001124-95.
2 In light of this conclusion, we do not address the agency's alternative
argument that its action was authorized by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(g) which,
by its terms, applies to dismissals of complaints.