01A10550_r
09-20-2001
Gene Paul Norris, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Gene Paul Norris v. United States Postal Service
01A10550
September 20, 2001
Gene Paul Norris,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10550
Agency No. 4-E-870-0108-97
Hearing No. 350-99-8015X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated August 25, 2000, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 24, 1999 settlement agreement
(SA) into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29
C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(10) The Agency will issue, and submit, two checks in the amount of
$25,000.00 and $15,000.00 to the complainant within ten (10) days
upon notification from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
that his application for disability retirement has been approved.
The complainant will be responsible for any and all taxes that may be
due and owed in connection with the complainant's disability retirement
and these payments. Said checks to be fully negotiable for the period
one year from the date of issuance.
The Agency agrees that if the complainant's disability retirement is
approved the agency will not require the complainant to return to work
for the Agency, except as required by applicable law. The complainant
may seek other federal employment in accordance with applicable rules
and regulations as established by OPM.
The complainant agrees that he will not require the Agency to return
him to work at the Postal Service, after his Disability Retirement is
approved unless the complainant is compelled to return to work by OPM
or other applicable law.
By letter to the agency dated May 9, 2000, complainant alleged that the
agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the agency
implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency
negotiated in bad faith in the execution of the SA by failing to inform
him fully of the tax consequences of the cash payments he was to receive,
and by not paying the Agency's share of the social security taxes due.
Complainant asserts that the settlement agreement was entered into in
bad faith when the agency led him to believe that due to his disability,
he was not qualified to perform the job of a letter carrier and failed
to inform complainant that he was qualified for other agency positions,
including accounting positions.
In its August 25, 2000 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant had
signed the SA stating that he read and understood the conditions and
restrictions set forth in it; that complainant was able to understand
the agreement in its entirety; and that complainant freely signed the
SA without reservation, duress, or coercion on the part of anyone.
The agency noted that complainant was issued two separate checks, in
the amounts of $25,000.00 and $15,000.00 pursuant to provision 10 of
the agreement. The Agency found that complainant agreed to everything in
the settlement and did not show that he was unduly coerced into signing
the agreement. Accordingly, the agency concluded that no breach occurred
and that it had fully complied with the terms of the agreement.
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).
Provision 10 of the settlement agreement provided for an affirmative
agency obligation to submit to complainant two separate checks in the
amounts of $25,000.00 and $15,000.00. The record reflects that the
checks were paid to complainant. The Commission finds that no breach
resulted from the consequential diminution of the settlement proceeds
by the amounts complainant was subsequently required to pay in taxes.
Complainant also argues that the agency acted in bad faith in settlement
of his EEO complaints by misleading him into believing him that the agency
had no other jobs for which he was qualified and that his only option was
disability retirement, since he could not work as a letter carrier given
his physical limitations and the agency's inability to accommodate his
medical restrictions. The SA states only that the parties have agreed
complainant will apply for disability retirement and that complainant
will have no obligation to return to work, nor will complainant require
the agency to reinstate him if his application is approved.
On appeal and in his letter to the agency outlining his claim of breach,
complainant essentially contends that he was induced to enter into the
agreement by misrepresentations of the agency. In this case complainant
has demonstrated neither intent nor material misrepresentation. The
record contains no persuasive evidence in the form of affidavits or sworn
testimony establishing complainant's contentions that he was induced by
trick or fraud, or misled by the agency's omission of material facts it
had some duty to provide. For these reasons we find complainant failed
to prove misrepresentation which would void the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's FAD finding no settlement breach is AFFIRMED
for the reasons set forth herein.
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 20, 2001
__________________
Date