01983261
06-09-1999
Ed A. Delos Reyes, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency
Ed A. Delos Reyes v. United States Postal Service
01983261
June 9, 1999
Ed A. Delos Reyes, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01983261
v. ) Agency No. 4-F-926-1134-94
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency )
)
DECISION
Appellant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Commission) from the agency's March 3, 1998, decision finding that the
agency did not breach the negotiated settlement agreement signed by the
appellant on June 6, 1996.
The settlement agreement provided that appellant would not institute a
lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
Section 13 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended; and/or Section 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended; and agreed to withdraw his request for hearings filed
in EEOC case number 4-F-826-1134-94. In exchange, the agency agreed
that appellant would be treated equitably when applying for changes of
schedule, and the supervisor would provide an appropriate explanation
on the request form where schedule changes were not approved.
Appellant, a full time, regular carrier scheduled for the hours 7:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m., alleges that the agency breached the settlement
agreement when he applied for and was not granted a schedule change to
6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and the acting supervisor did not inform appellant
of the reason for the disapproval. Appellant notes that a co-worker
requested and was granted a schedule change to 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The agency stated that schedule changes may be approved based upon
operational needs, specifically, whether there is sufficient mail
available for the particular carrier's route to justify starting work
at an earlier time. The agency contends that based upon the amount of
mail in appellant's route and when that mail was received and distributed,
the acting supervisor was not satisfied that appellant would be productive
between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m.
The agency further states that the acting supervisor was not aware of
appellant's settlement agreement when he processed appellant's request.
The agency amended the request form to indicate the reason for the denial,
informed the acting supervisor of the settlement agreement, and stated
that the acting supervisor will comply with its terms in the future.
The agency further states that the co-worker has a larger amount of mail
in her route, and therefore, has more mail to process in the earlier
time frame.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be
binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency
has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the
complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance.
See 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms of
the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or request that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contact's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Beterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900195
(August 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is
a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the
parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v, united
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (April 29, 1994)(citing
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, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id.(citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In this case, the Commission finds that appellant was treated equitably
and was provided an explanation for the denied request. The agency
amended the request form to provide the explanation and informed the
acting supervisor of appellant's agreement. The agency also provided
a rational business reason for the co-worker's approved schedule change.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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(c).
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. 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 (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).
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 9, 1999
______________ ___________________________
DATE Carlton Haddon, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations