01a44420_r
09-27-2004
Frank C. Guevara, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Frank C. Guevara v. United States Postal Service
01A44420
September 27, 2004
.
Frank C. Guevara,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44420 Agency No. 1F-927-0052-03
DECISION
The record reveals that on June 24, 2003, complainant and the agency
entered into a settlement agreement regarding complainant's EEO complaint.
The settlement provided in pertinent part as follows:
If [Complainant] gets a BEM score, management will post a EC1 course by
January 30, 2004, for anyone with a BEM score.
We note that subsequent to the aforementioned settlement,
complainant claimed that the settlement agreement had been breached.
Complainant stated that pursuant to the settlement he started taking
the H.V.A.C. class on the clock at work each day. Complainant claimed
that he became ill and missed about six weeks of work. According to
complainant, upon his return to work he continued with the class and
passed it. Complainant stated that he then started on the clock training
for the next knowledge, skill and ability, the National Electrical Code.
Complainant stated that the agency stopped his training process and caused
him to miss the January 30, 2004 deadline for obtaining a BEM score.
According to complainant, on January 20, 2004, he was told that he would
no longer be able to train on the clock even though he still had four
hours left to go on the National Electrical Code course and another
course to take in Soldering. Complainant stated that he requested a
six week extension, but the agency rejected his request.
By decision dated May 19, 2004, the agency determined that it had not
breached the settlement agreement. The agency stated that complainant
failed to obtain a BEM score by January 30, 2004, therefore an EC1
School was not posted. The agency noted that complainant had requested
a six week extension to get a BEM score, but that management informed
him that if he was granted another sex weeks, he would have to do all
of his training and turn in his approved paperwork in less than two
weeks to allow for the 32-day window for review panels and testing.
According to the agency, management stated that it offered to allow
complainant to continue the training and finish the course he was working
on, but complainant rejected the offer.
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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of
the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
Upon review of the record, we observe that complainant has not submitted
argument or evidence that refutes the agency's position that it has not
breached the settlement agreement. Complainant claimed that the agency
breached the settlement agreement when it decided that he would no longer
be able to train on the clock. Complainant argues that this prevented him
from being able to obtain a BEM score by the January 30, 2004 deadline.
However, we observe no language in the settlement agreement indicating
that the agency was required to allow complainant to do training on
the clock. The settlement also does not require the agency to allow
complainant a time extension if he became ill during the period prior to
January 30, 2004. There is no indication that the agency has acted in
bad faith. We find that in light of the fact that complainant did not
obtain a BEM score by January 30, 2004, the agency was not required to
post an EC1 course. We find that complainant has not established that
the agency breached the settlement agreement.
Therefore, the agency's May 19, 2004 decision finding no breach 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
September 27, 2004
__________________
Date