0120083519
01-08-2009
Marlon L. Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Marlon L. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120083519
Agency No. 1A073001706
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 25, 2008, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the February 14, 2006 settlement agreement
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:
If and when the [current] BMC Maintenance Manager can offer a 90 day
detail as Manager Maintenance, and all parties are in agreement, then
this same BMC Maintenance Manager will allow complainant to work in the
position and mentor him.
On PS Form 2564-A, dated May 8, 2008, complainant alleged that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency had agreed to detail him into the position as
Maintenance Manager if it should become vacant.
In its July 25, 2008 FAD, the agency maintained that complainant's
notions are misguided. Specifically, the agency's New York Area
Manager, Maintenance Operations (AMMO), stated that in January 2008, he
was asked to find someone to fill in for the BMC Maintenance Manager,
who had recently retired. The record reflects that the AMMO selected
an employee around the middle of January to act in the position of BMC
Maintenance Manager. Having subsequently been made aware of complaint's
settlement agreement, the AMMO noted that the settlement no longer seemed
to have any relevance since the recently retired, BMC Maintenance Manager
was no longer in a position to mentor complainant, "and a detail to be
mentored as a BMC Maintenance Manager seems to be a little superfluous
since complainant already is a BMC Maintenance Manager."
The AMMO stated that the settlement agreement was reached on February
14, 2006, and a month later complainant left the New York Metro Area
for a position in Dallas. The AMMO asserted that since March 18, 2006,
complainant has held the position of Maintenance Manager BMC Dallas. He
noted that it has been two years since complainant and the previous
BMC Maintenance Manager agreed upon a mentoring arrangement and signed
the agreement. The agency concluded that it is not in keeping with the
intent of the agreement to give complainant a
detail position to mentor him when he has held the position of a BMC
Maintenance Manager for the past two years.
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).
The burden is on the party alleging breach to establish that a breach
has occurred. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission finds
that complainant has not shown that the agency has breached the settlement
agreement at issue. Of note, the BMC Maintenance Manager, who has since
retired, was an integral component of complainant's settlement agreement
with the agency. Further, complainant has achieved his intended position
of Maintenance Manager. Recognizing that complainant details through
several letters to the agency his own account, including his desire to
live closer to family in New York, the Commission is not swayed in finding
that the agency has breached the settlement agreement in this matter.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no settlement breach
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
January 8, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120083519
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120083519