01A44494_r
10-20-2004
Daniel J. Jones, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Daniel J. Jones v. United States Postal Service
01A44494
October 20, 2004
.
Daniel J. Jones,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44494
Agency No. 4E-840-0170-94
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated August 10, 2004, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of a June 13, 1996 settlement agreement.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
The June 13, 1996 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
5. The parties agree to provide training to the Complainant in the form
of a 60 to 90 day detail within a one year time period from the date
of this agreement. The detail will be to the Human Resources Salt Lake
District working on special projects. In addition, Complainant will be
allowed up to 250.00 dollars for outside training course(s) at his choice.
The course(s) must be relative to the Employee Assistance Program.<1>
By letter to the agency dated July 12, 2004, complainant claimed that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, when he did not receive
training as provided by the instant agreement.. Complainant stated that
in 2000, he was scheduled to attend training courses but these courses
were cancelled due to lack of funding; and that he �subsequently applied
several more times for the training but was denied.�
In its August 10, 2004 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant's
breach claims were untimely raised.
Regarding the merits of the breach claims, the agency stated that
complainant was provided training in the form of a detail in excess of
90 days and within the specified one year time period identified in the
settlement agreement. The agency stated that from March 1997 through July
1997, complainant was detailed to the position of Fraud Analyst within the
Human Resources' Injury Compensation Office. The agency further stated
that from August 1997 through April 1999, complainant was detailed to
the position of Coordinator of the Associate Supervisor Program (ASP).
The agency concluded that a review of the record reflects that complainant
was authorized $850.00 to attend a five-day training course in Development
Assessment and Planning in October 1999. The agency also concluded that
it paid him to attend other valuable training courses.
On appeal, complainant, through his representative, contends that
although the agency in its FAD determined that [Manager, Human Resources]
�authorized $850 to attend the 5-day Development and Assessment course,
the request was �DENIED' as written on the face of the document [emphasis
added].�
In response, the agency disputes complainant's arguments that he was
denied attendance for the $850.00 Development and Assessment training
course. The agency argues that on September 7, 1999, the $850.00
training course was approved and attended by complainant. The agency
further argues that the documentation provided by complainant on appeal
was related to a separate training course in the amount of $500.00.
The agency acknowledges that the denial of the $500.00 training
course occurred on May 18, 2000. Furthermore, the agency argues that
although the training provision of provision 5 provides no time limit
for compliance, complainant was provided training in September 1999
and on February 3, 2003.
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).
The Commission determines that the agency properly found no breach.
The record contains copies of PS Form 991 outlining complainant's
training history and postal positions within the agency. Therein, the
record reveals that from March 1997 through July 1997, complainant was
detailed to the position of Fraud Analyst within the agency's Injury
Compensation Office. The record also reveals that from August 1997
through April 1999, complainant was detailed as an ASP Coordinator.
The record also contains a copy of PS Form 1782, Training Request
and Authorization dated September 7, 1999. Therein, the Manager,
Human Resources approved complainant's request to attend Development
Assessment and Planning training from October 4, 1999 through October 8,
1999 in the amount of $850.00.
We note that on appeal, complainant stated that the Manager, Human
Resources did not approve his request to attend the Development
Assessment and Planning training from October 4, 1999 through October 8,
1999, and submitted a copy of a request form in support of the argument
that his request had been denied. After a careful review of PS Form
7381, Requisition for Supplies, Services of Equipment form submitted
by complainant, we note that complainant requested to attend a separate
training course at the Bologer Academy for Leadership 2000 in the amount
of $500.00, not the Development Assessment and Planning training.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no breach of provision
5 of the settlement agreement.
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
October 20, 2004
__________________
Date
1The settlement agreement also provides for
the agency to pay complainant's representative the amount of $750.00.
This provision is not at issue in the instant appeal.