01A31714_r
05-13-2003
James Stanley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James Stanley v. United States Postal Service
01A31714
May 13, 2003
.
James Stanley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31714
Agency No. 4A-070-0241-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision dated December 24, 2002, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of an October 18, 2000 settlement agreement. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The October 18, 2000 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,
that:
(1) Management per this mediation agrees to reduce the �seven days
suspension� dated 6/22/00 to a �letter of warning� with a retention to
expire and be removed from the counselee's OPF [official personnel file]
as of 2/1/01;
. . .
(4) Management pledges to make all effort to maintain the counselee's
work activities with his bid assignment.
By letter to the agency dated October 5, 2002, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Regarding provision (1),
complainant alleged that on October 23, 2002, the agency improperly
issued him a disciplinary action that made reference to the June 22,
2000 suspension that had been reduced to a letter of warning.<1>
Regarding provision (4), complainant claimed that on October 8, 2002, he
was given a �drastic change� of starting time, by two hours. Complainant
acknowledged that the two-hour change in starting time in and of itself
�is not a non-compliance� with provision (4). Complainant asserts,
however, that the two-hour change resulted in the change of his job in
such a manner that led to breach of provision (4).
In its December 24, 2002 final decision, the agency acknowledged that it
failed to comply with provision (1), by issuing a disciplinary action on
October 23, 2002, that improperly made reference to the suspension reduced
to a letter of warning identified in that provision. The agency stated,
however, that the management official who issued complainant the October
23, 2002 discipline was not aware of the subject settlement agreement.
The agency stated that any breach of provision (1) was cured when the
agency amended the October 23, 2002 discipline by omitting the June
22, 2000 reference to the suspension in the elements of complainant's
past record. The agency presented evidence reflecting the amendment
of the October 23, 2002 discipline, omitting the June 22, 2000 reference.
Regarding complainant's arguments concerning provision (4), the agency
found that by complainant's own admission, this matter was not a
compliance issue, and that complainant has raised the new incident of
alleged discrimination in a separate mediation.
On appeal, complainant does not address the agency's decision regarding
provision (1), but states instead that he is �filing this issue dealing
with #4 . . .� Complainant further states that he would discuss his
allegation of breach of provision (4) with a new manager �who realizes
what a [mess] has been made of the assignment and hopefully the issue
will be resolved.�
In response, the agency restates the position it took in the final
decision. In addition, the agency states that complainant's breach claim
of provision (4) occurred more than two years following the execution of
the agreement and that it has no bearing on the agreement. The agency
further states that complainant has requested counseling on these matters
(Agency No. 4A-070-0017-03).
The record contains a letter to complainant from an agency Supervisor,
Customer Service, dated December 19, 2002. Therein, the Supervisor
stated that complainant's fourteen-day suspension dated October 23,
2002, has been amended. The Supervisor further stated that complainant's
notice of seven-day suspension dated June 22, 2000, has �been removed,�
pursuant to the October 18, 2000 settlement 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 O 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 (1)
Regarding provision (1), we note that the agency admits that it did not
comply with the subject provision within the time frame specified in the
agreement. However, to the extent that the agency breached provision (1)
of the agreement, the record indicates that the agency cured its breach
by amending the October 23, 2002 discipline, omitting the June 22, 2000
reference to the suspension in the elements of complainant's past record,
and removed complainant's notice of seven-day suspension dated June 22,
2000, from his file. Complainant does not allege that he suffered any
harm as a result of the delay and on appeal, focuses exclusively on the
breach claim regarding provision (4), which is discussed further below.
We determine that the agency has substantially complied with provision
(1) of the agreement.
Provision (4)
Regarding provision (4), we find no evidence supporting a finding that the
agency breached this provision. Provision (4) provided for an affirmative
agency obligation to make all efforts to maintain complainant's work
activities with his bid assignments. We discern nothing in the record
reflecting that the agency has failed to comply with this provision.
Furthermore, the Commission has held that if a settlement agreement does
not include specific duration terms for the employment relationship
which could have been agreed upon, it would be improper to interpret
the reasonable intentions of the parties as binding the agency to the
terms thereof forever. See Parker v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request
No. 05910576 (August 30, 1991). We determine that the agency's decision
to alter complainant's starting time by two hours, approximately two
years after the agreement was executed, cannot be construed as an action
that breached provision (4).
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding that it did not breach the
settlement agreement 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
May 13, 2003
__________________
Date
1The Commission notes that although
complainant's breach claim is dated October 5, 2002, it makes reference
to a disciplinary action dated eighteen days later, on October 23, 2002.