0120080903
03-10-2008
Roi F. Reede, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roi F. Reede,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080903
Agency No. HQ-000-0034-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision dated November 2, 2007, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the March 15, 2006 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402; .405; and .504(b).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Agency agrees that it will grant the [complainant] a one (1) year
contract of work wherein [complainant] would perform the duties associated
with his previous position of record as a Communication Specialist
in the San Francisco Bay Area within ninety days (90) of the signing
of this agreement. [Complainant] further understands that a specific
contract of work between the parties, in accordance with Agency policies
and procedure, will be generated by Agency counsel after the mediation.
(2) Agency and [complainant] agree that compensation for services
provided pursuant to the contract of work will be at the hourly rate
of thirty-three ($33.00) dollars per hour. Both parties further agree
that any work that [complainant] performs beyond the scope of duties
of the Communication Specialist position are negotiable items between
the parties. Moreover, the contracted position will be at the full time
equivalent level.
(3) Agency also agrees to compensate [complainant] for travel related
expenses during the contract period according to Agency rules and
regulations.
(4) Agency further agrees that the one (1) year contract is renewable
on a yearly basis, so long as [complainant] successfully performs the
duties associated with the Communication Specialist position depending
on budgetary constraints.
(5) Agency additionally agrees that [complainant] is not
precluded from applying for other positions within the [agency.]
By a letter to the agency in July 2007, complainant alleged that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms or reinstate his underlying
complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency ended
his contract on June 30, 2007 and refused to renew it as he alleged was
required by paragraph (4) of the settlement agreement.
In its November 2 final decision, the agency stated that it did not renew
complainant's contract due to budgetary constraints and concluded that
it did not breach paragraph (4) of the March 2007 settlement agreement.
The agency provided an investigative affidavit from an agency Radio
Frequencies Program Manager (S1). S1 stated that, during the budget
development process for fiscal year 2008, management was tasked with
reviewing program needs and funding, and eliminating non-essential
program costs. S1 added that complainant's contract expired and
the agency determined that the work performed by complainant could be
transitioned to staff members to reduce costs. The agency included a copy
of complainant's contract for professional services from July 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2007. The contract indicates that the agency paid complainant
$81,000 for wages and travel-related expenses during the contract period.
The instant appeal from complainant followed. On appeal, complainant
stated that the agency did not indicate any issues with his performance
and failed to establish that budget constraints really exist. Also,
complainant asserted that the agency could have located another contract
position for him in another one of its organizations.
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 the instant case, we find that complainant failed to meet his burden
of proving breach as to paragraph (4) of the March 15, 2006 settlement
agreement with the agency. See Vega v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01986613 (June 30, 2000). The record supports the agency's contention
that it complied with the subject agreement. Complainant's contentions
on appeal suggest that he is unhappy with the agreement as written and
seeks to adjust its terms. Based on the above, we AFFIRM the agency's
final decision.
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
March 10, 2008
__________________
Date
2
0120080903
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120080903