01A33562_r
08-28-2003
Peter Sun, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Peter Sun v. United States Postal Service
01A33562
August 28, 2003
.
Peter Sun,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A33562
Agency Nos. 4F-900-0054-01, 4F-900-0119-02
Hearing No. 340-A2-3106X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging that the agency
breached two settlement agreements into which the parties entered.
The record reveals that the parties entered into a settlement agreement
on March 14, 2002, settling Agency No. 4F-900-0054-01. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
If the complainant's route (77069) qualifies for a special route
inspection, it will be scheduled in accordance with postal rules and
regulations.
The record reveals that the parties entered into a second settlement
agreement on June 20, 2002, settling Agency No. 4F-900-0119-02.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Within the next two months reduce 77069 by a[t] least 30 stops, three
month reduce by a[t] least 10 stops, and four months reduce by an
addition[al] 30 stops.
By letter to the agency dated August 4, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the March 14, 2002 settlement agreement.
Specifically, complainant alleged that he qualified for a special route
inspection, however, the agency failed to schedule one in accordance
with the agreement.
Subsequently, in a letter dated May 11, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the June 20, 2002 settlement agreement.
Complainant filed the present appeal on May 21, 2003, alleging that the
agency breached the March 14, 2002 settlement agreement.
Subsequently, the agency responded to the August 4, 2002, and May 11,
2003 breach allegations in a consolidated decision on June 6, 2003.
The agency noted that management failed to respond to multiple requests
for information on the implementation of the two referenced settlement
agreements. Therefore, the agency determined that it failed to implement
the March 14, 2002 and June 20, 2002 agreements. The agency stated that
as a result of the breach finding and since the two cases are similar,
they will be combined and reinstated for further processing. The agency
noted that since complainant's formal complaint was pending a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), complainant's cases will be
returned to the AJ for further processing.
The record contains a June 6, 2003 letter to the EEOC's Los Angeles
District Office in which the agency forwarded Agency Nos. 4F-900-0054-01
and 4F-900-0119-02 for further processing.
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).
In the present case, we agree with the agency that the March 14, 2002,
and June 20, 2002 settlement agreements were breached. The March 14,
2002 agreement provided that if complainant's route (77069) qualifies for
a special route inspection, it will be scheduled. Complainant contends
that his route qualified for a special route inspection but none was
performed. The agency makes no argument that complainant's route did
not qualify for a special route inspection. Additionally, the agency
presents no evidence that the requisite route inspection was performed.
The June 20, 2002 agreement provided that within two months complainant's
route 77069 will be reduced by at least 30 stops, after three months
it will be reduced by at least 10 stops, and after four months reduced
by an additional 30 stops. The agency has presented no evidence that
complainant's 77069 has been reduced. As the agency has forwarded
Agency Nos. 4F-900-0054-01 and 4F-900-0119-02 to the EEOC's Los Angeles
District Office for further processing, we find that the agency has
taken the proper action regarding complainant's breach claims.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision 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
August 28, 2003
__________________
Date