01A20183_r
12-12-2002
Clinton Hughley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Clinton Hughley v. United States Postal Service
01A20183
December 12, 2002
.
Clinton Hughley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A20183
Agency Nos. 1F-901-0057-99, et al.
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated August 28, 2001, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the February 10, 1999 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) [Complainant] shall retire from employment with the [agency] on the
first week of March 2000.
(3) [Complainant's] detail to the office of maintenance support shall
terminate March 3, 2000.
[Complainant] shall be paid a sum equal to 3 months pay at his 1996
pay rate subject to all deduction required by law upon proof to the
satisfaction of the [agency] that paragraph 6 and 7 below has been
fully and completely performed.
By letter to the agency dated June 10, 2001, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
his complaint be reinstated for processing. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency failed to retire him as stated in the agreement.
In its August 28, 2001 decision, the agency concluded that it did not
breach the terms of the settlement agreement. The agency stated that
complainant was detailed to the office of Maintenance and Support and on
March 16, 2000, submitted a voluntary resignation form from the agency.
The agency states that on August 25, 1999, complainant was issued a
check in the amount of $4,812.52 for back pay and a check in the amount
of $2,244.90 for interest on back pay.
On appeal, complainant states that he never retired the first week in
March 2000, as stated in the agreement. Additionally, complainant states
that he was not paid the money due to him under the settlement agreement.
Complainant states that the money he received on August 25, 1999 did
not cover grievance number F94T-FC97072082.
The record contains a copy of a check dated August 10, 1999, payable
to complainant in the amount of $4,812.52. A description of the check
states that it represents a back pay award for pay period 12/1996
through 18/1996 resulting from an EEOC settlement. The record also
contains a copy of a check dated August 20, 1999 payable to complainant
in the amount of $2,244.90. An attached description of the August 20,
1999 check states that it is payment for interest on the back pay award
for complainant's EEOC case number 1F-901-0057-99. The record reflects
that complainant signed for both checks on August 25, 1999.
The record contains a copy of complainant's resignation dated March 16,
2000, in which he states that he is resigning due to continued harassment
and mistreatment from managers and supervisors. The record contains a
Form 50 indicating that complainant's resignation became effective March
16, 2000.
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 present case, we find that the agency properly determined that it
did not breach the settlement agreement. With regard to provision (2),
we find that the obligation was on complainant to retire from the agency.
There was no obligation for the agency to �retire� complainant absent
complainant's request to retire. We note that complainant does not
claim that the agency interfered with or prevented his retirement during
the first week in March 2000. With regard to provision (5), the record
reveals that complainant received the back pay plus interest required
under this provision on August 25, 1999.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision 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
December 12, 2002
__________________
Date