01A10776_r
03-30-2001
James W. Vaughn, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James W. Vaughn v. United States Postal Service
01A10776
March 30, 2001
.
James W. Vaughn,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10776
Agency No. 4-E-870-0015-98
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's October 6, 2000 letter of
determination dismissing complainant's breach of settlement claim,
is proper pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504.
The record shows that complainant and the agency reached a settlement
agreement on February 18, 2000. One of the provisions of the agreement
provided that complainant �will be utilized as a 204B supervisor in the
Las Vegas Post Office effective immediately.�<1>
By letter dated July 28, 2000, complainant informed the agency that
the agency postmaster had breached the aforementioned provision of the
settlement agreement by utilizing an additional Postal Service employee
as a 204B supervisor. Complainant also stated that �[T]he violation
began on July 1, 2000, utilizing [a named agency employee] as 204-B . . .�
By final decision dated October 6, 2000, the agency determined that no
breach had occurred because �the agreement does not specify that you
would be the only person utilized as a 204B in the Las Vegas Post Office.
Operational needs required the use of another employee on Tour 1 as a
204B supervisor in order to get the mail out.�
On appeal, complainant argues that other employees are entitled to upward
mobility, but not at his expense. Complainant submits a statement from
an agency official who asserted that another agency official informed him
that complainant was not to be used as a 204B as a result of a redress
settlement with another employee; that this conversation took place
in later March 2000, and that complainant has not been afforded the
opportunity to perform in that capacity since that time.
EEOC Regulations provide that any settlement agreement knowingly and
voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be binding on both parties.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement, then the complainant shall notify
the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance �within 30 days of when
the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance.�
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms
of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or request
that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point
processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the complainant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there
is a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent
of the parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule.
Wong v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing Hyon
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2, 1991)). This rule states
that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, then
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument
without any resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. Id. (citing
Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th
Cir. 1984)). The Commission notes that if a complaint is reinstated
for further processing, then the parties must be returned to the status
quo at the time that the parties entered into the settlement agreement,
which requires that a complainant return any monies received pursuant to
the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Armour v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01965593 (June 24, 1997); Komiskey v. Department of the
Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01955696 (September 5, 1996).
A review of the record persuades the Commission that the agency did not
breach the settlement agreement dated February 18, 2000. The terms of
the settlement did not provide a guarantee that complainant would be
the only employee utilized as a 204B supervisor, or for an indeterminate
period of time. Instead, the agreement provided that complainant would
be utilized as a 204B supervisor �immediately.� The Commission notes in
the agency's Letter of Determination that complainant was utilized as a
204B supervisor steadily between February 18, 2000 and July 2000 following
the settlement agreement. Complainant's assertion in his July 28, 2000
letter of settlement breach (i.e., that the breach began on July 1, 2000)
implicitly supports the agency's determination that he was employed in
a 204B capacity until July 2000, notwithstanding the statement submitted
by an agency official on appeal indicating that complainant received no
204-B assignments since March 2000. Based on the record, the Commission
determines that the agency complied with the provision of the settlement
agreement requiring complainant's placement in 204-B assignments.
Accordingly, the settlement agreement was not breached by the agency.
The final agency determination was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
March 30, 2001
__________________
Date
1The agreement further provided for
payment to complainant of a lump sum of $3,500.00 and for expungement of
disciplinary actions from his Official Personnel Folder. These provisions
are not at issue in the instant appeal