01A11712_r
07-05-2002
Eddie C. Clyde, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eddie C. Clyde v. United States Postal Service
01A11712
July 5, 2002
.
Eddie C. Clyde,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A11712
Agency Nos. 4H-310-0237-97, 4H-310-0022-99
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a decision
by the agency dated December 4, 2000, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the April 5, 2000 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that<1>:
The two supervisor[s] will refra[in] from any/all unfair treatment of
the complainant from this agreement on.
[Complainant] will be treated with dignity and respect.
All matters in this case will be settled by postal service management
agreeing to keep out of [complainant's Office of Workers Compensation
Programs,] OWCP case[s] numbered #060700853 and 060720502 except to
fill out the parts of the forms necessary for his supervisors ... [t]o
answer and sign [for] receiving OWCP benefits.
All matters in this case will be withdrawn by management to the effect
that not a trace remains in the complaint record/files.
This matter is never to be brought up again.
By letter to the agency dated August 29, 2000, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency reinstate his complaints for processing. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to treat him with dignity and
respect on several occasions and hindered his filing for OWCP benefits
as follows:
On April 26, 2000, complainant was advised of the policy for new
vehicle use.
On May 30, 2000, complainant was counseled regarding the number of
express mail packages he needs to deliver in one hour.
On June 5, 2000, complainant was told not to carry mail anymore.
On July 7, 2000, complainant was directed to work in another employee's
area who was absent.
On July 8, 2000, complainant was again directed to work up front on mail
from another employee's area.
After complainant's doctor placed him on sick leave effective July 25,
2000, complainant received a note from his supervisor dated July 29,
2000 questioning the doctor's note.
On August 7, 2000, complainant asked another supervisor for forms CA-17
and CA-1. This supervisor told complainant that the postmaster would
need to be consulted before he could give complainant the forms.
In its December 4, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that the terms of
the settlement agreement did not insulate complainant from normal workday
instructions or corrections by agency management when the need arose.
The agency concluded that complainant had not shown that he had been
treated unfairly or that he has been disrespected. Further, the agency
determined that agency officials did not, ultimately, refuse to give
complainant the necessary forms.
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).
In the instant case, we find that provisions 1 and 2 of the settlement
agreement are vague and unenforceable. Accordingly, the agency correctly
concluded that no breach of these terms occurred. Furthermore, we note
that the Commission has held that claims contending that subsequent
acts of discrimination or harassment violate a settlement agreement
shall be processed as separate complaints rather than as a claim
of breach. See generally Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). Therefore, to the
extent that complainant is raising new claims of reprisal regarding
incidents occurring subsequent to the settlement agreement, complainant
should contact an EEO Counselor if he wishes to further pursue them.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c).
We concur that no breach of provision 3 has occurred. The record reveals
a signed affidavit by the supervisor from whom complainant initially
sought to obtain the necessary OWCP forms. This supervisor did not have
the correct forms and so, he was compelled to consult with other agency
officials before he could provide the necessary forms to complainant.
Nothing in the record demonstrates a desire by the agency to hinder
complainant's application for OWCP benefits. Accordingly, no breach
of provision 3 occurred.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's decision determining that no breach of
the April 5, 2000 settlement agreement occurred.
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
July 5, 2002
__________________
Date
1We have numbered the settlement provisions
for reference.