01A42157_r
11-16-2004
Oran Knox, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Oran Knox v. United States Postal Service
01A42157
11/16/2004
.
Oran Knox,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42157
Agency No. 4G-770-0234-01
Hearing No. 330-A2-8056X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated December 31, 2003, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of a July 19, 2002 settlement agreement.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
The July 19, 2002 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The Postal Service will advise complainant's current and future
supervisors of the work restrictions identified in the letter dated April
30, 2001 from the Houston District Reasonable Accommodation Committee
and advise them to comply. If complainant produces within 30 days from
the date of this agreement medical documentation stating that complainant
may work no later than 4:00 p.m. and must be assigned within 30 minutes
from his home, those restrictions will be included in this advisory.<1>
By letter to the agency dated March 5, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the
agency implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that on
February 15, 2003, an agency official (A1) instructed him to report
to the East Houston Station to count rural routes. Complainant further
asserted that East Houston Station is 61 miles from his home and that
the commute time is more than thirty minutes. In addition, complainant
stated that A1 assigned him to report to Willow Place Station for the
month of March 2003, to complete �3999's on all the routes in zone 64.�
Complainant asserted that this task required him to work past 4:00
p.m. on a regular basis.
In its December 31, 2003 FAD, the agency stated that it conducted an
investigation regarding complainant's breach claim. The agency stated
that A1 asserted that �[complainant was] assigned to perform office and
street supervision because of the problems [complainant] had experienced
in the past with employees assigned to Willow Place.� A1 further stated
that �he did not consider [this] to be a breach of [the] agreement.�
In its FAD, the agency also stated that it interviewed a Customer
Services Manager (C1) regarding complainant's breach claim. C1 stated
that A1 informed her that complainant would be coming back to the Willow
Place Station. C1 further stated that complainant often volunteered to
work past 4:00 p.m. and had to be instructed to end his tour.
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).
In reviewing provision (2), we find that the agency did not incur a
legal detriment by merely being obligated to merely advise complainant's
current and future supervisors of his medical restrictions, therefore,
we find that provision (2) is void for lack of consideration. See Morita
v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05960450 (December 12,
1997). However, given that other consideration was exchanged through
other provisions of the settlement agreement, we find that the entire
settlement agreement is not invalid but rather reformed without provision
(2).
Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's determination finding
no breach for the reasons stated 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
11/16/2004
Date
1The settlement agreement also provides for the agency to expunge from
complainant's Official Personnel File a Letter of Warning dated January
3, 2001. This provision is not at issue in the instant appeal.