01a54229
12-02-2005
Robert Ward, Jr., Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robert Ward, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
01A54229
12-02-05
.
Robert Ward, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54229
Agency No. 4H-300-0265-03
Hearing No. 110-2004-00365X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission regarding the terms of
the March 2, 2005 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 was read into the record by
complainant's attorney during a settlement conference before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Complainant will be returned to the Postal Service in a custodial
position, PS level two;
(2) He will be returned to work at the Crown Road facility;
(3) His hiring will take place at the end of ninety days;
(4) All other applicable Postal rules and regulations which would normally
apply to the hiring of a new custodian within the United States Postal
Service will apply to this hiring;
The United States Postal Service agrees to pay three thousand dollars
in attorney's fees.<1>
By letter to the agency dated March 19, 2005, complainant informed the
agency that he had decided not to comply with the settlement agreement.
He indicated that he had also made his attorney aware of this fact.
Nevertheless, the agency tendered a check in the amount of $3,000.00
as an attorney's fee payment to complainant. Complainant later returned
the check to the agency.<2>
In its July 21, 2005 response to complainant's appeal, the agency contends
that the settlement was agreed to by both parties and that complainant
simply wishes to abandon the agreement and start the process all over.
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).
Upon review, we find that there is a legally binding settlement agreement
between the parties. In the instant case, the Commission finds that
complainant did not provided any evidence that the agency breached the
settlement agreement, nor did he argue that the settlement agreement
was not valid for any specific reason, or that he was coerced into
entering into the agreement, or that the agreement was oral. In fact,
complainant gives no explanation as to why the settlement agreement
should be invalidated. The Commission notes that we have only upheld
the validity of a settlement agreement entered into orally in one type
of situation, i.e., when a verbal agreement is reached during a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Acree v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05900784 (October 4, 1990). In upholding the validity
of the oral agreement in Acree, the Commission relied on the fact that
the hearing transcript evidenced the agreement between the parties. This
case is similar to Acree in that, we have a hearing transcript or its
equivalent setting out the terms of the agreement. Further, complainant's
statement that he declined the �proposed settlement agreement� is not
supported by the record because complainant, his attorney, and the agency
representatives were all present at the settlement conference and there
is no reference to the fact that it was a �proposed�settlement agreement.
Finally, we cite, the agency's partial performance of the settlement
agreement as support for the validity of the agreement. Accordingly,
we find that no breach occurred.
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
___12-02-05_______________
Date
1 During the settlement conference, where the terms of the settlement
agreement were read into the record, the Administrative Judge added
that complainant needed to get his medical assessment done probably by
late May or early June to make sure that he would be able to start the
position in late June. The AJ dismissed the case with prejudice.
2 Complainant filed the appeal regarding the March 2, 2005 settlement
agreement on June 8, 2005.