01A04271_r
09-20-2001
Eddie Edgemon, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eddie Edgemon v. United States Postal Service
01A04271
September 20, 2001
.
Eddie Edgemon,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A04271
Agency No. 4-H-350-0031-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated May 19, 2000, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the December 21, 1999 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered (the parties included the agency,
complainant, and three other agency employees).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. The parties agree to the following:
a.) Equal treatment of employees by supervisors.
c.) Form 3971 must be filled out when employees are late.
d.) Meeting of Postmaster with Supervisors as needed to discuss
scheduling and staffing. Also, weekly meeting with employees to discuss
scheduling, unit goals, job performance and equal distribution of duties.
e.) Sufficient explanation for employees to understand reason for
denial of leave.
By letter to the agency dated March 15, 2000, complainant, along
with two of the three other employees that signed the agreement,
alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement.
Specifically, the letter alleged that the agency: was not putting up
duty rosters in violation of the �scheduling distribution of duties�
portion of provision (d); was not having weekly meetings; was changing
work schedules without informing the clerks involved (in violation
of provision (d)); disapproved leave because of late submission and
then approved non-scheduled time submitted even later for other clerks
(in violation of provision (e)); rejected one complainant's request for
leave without explanation on February 3, 2000; allowed other clerks to
work through lunch but required one signatory to submit a PS Form 3189
on March 7, 2000; made an unspecified violation concerning provision
(c) (�Form 3971 filled out when employee[s] are late�); one complainant
was advised after becoming ill at work and going to the doctor that he
�better watch his sick leave;� and complainant (in the instant case)
was required to have weekly cash counts after mediation.
In its May 19, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach
the settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency determined that the
Postmaster involved stated in response to the claims of breach that:
meetings were being held and complainant had walked out on the last
one; he schedules employees according to workload; he generally gives
an employee an explanation as to why leave was not approved: he does
not require a PS Form 3971 when employees work through lunch break: he
talked to the complainant in question about his absences; and; postal
rules required weekly cash counts (although it now had been changed to
bi-weekly counts). On appeal, complainant contests the statements in the
agency decision, and submits employee schedules and separate statements
from the other complainants claiming breach to substantiate his claims.
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 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 instant case, we find that there is insufficient evidence in the
record to determine whether the agency breached the settlement agreement.
Although complainant made a number of specific claims of breach concerning
a number of provisions, the agency's decision fails to address each claim.
Moreover, the record does not contain a direct statement from the named
Postmaster addressing each alleged breach or other evidence from the
agency concerning complainant's claims. We also note that complainant
has failed to explain how a number of the claimed agency actions violate
the settlement, or provide evidence directly related to breach of the
settlement. Consequently, we are unable to determine if the settlement
agreement was breached. We therefore remand complainant's breach claims
to the agency to supplement the record and to issue a new determination
as to agency compliance with provisions 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) of the
agreement based on the supplemental record.
Accordingly, the agency's decision is VACATED, and the case is hereby
REMANDED for further processing in accordance with this decision and
the Order below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall supplement the record with any relevant documentation,
including an affidavit from the relevant Postmaster and complainant,
addressing compliance with provisions 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) of
the parties December 21, 1999 settlement agreement. The Postmaster's
affidavit shall specifically address each claim in complainant's March 15,
2000 letter alleging breach. Complainant's affidavit shall specifically
address how each agency action claimed in the March 15, 2000 letter
violated the settlement.
Within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall issue a determination as to agency compliance
with provisions 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) of the settlement agreement.
A copy of the agency's determination regarding compliance with provisions
1(a), (c), (d), and (e) of the settlement agreement must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. 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 (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
September 20, 2001
__________________
Date