01A31378_r
05-22-2003
Roy L. Best, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roy L. Best v. United States Postal Service
01A31378
May 22, 2003
.
Roy L. Best,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31378
Agency Nos. 4H-320-1093-96/-1215-96/-0080-97/-0169-97/-0194-97
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
determination by the agency dated December 4, 2002, that it was in
compliance with the terms of the September 6, 2000 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. The settlement agreement provided:
[Complainant] will be provided light duty work within his medical
restrictions at the Defuniak Post Office between the hours of 6:30 a.m. -
3 p.m., with 30 minutes for lunch and Saturday and Sunday as off days.
. . . .
(4) [Complainant] will receive a lump sum payment of $1,000.
. . . .
[Complainant] will remain on light duty in the Defuniak Springs Post
Office as long as his physician states there is a possibility that
he will be able to return to full duty in the future. In the event
the physician deems that [complainant's] restrictions are permanent
in nature, [complainant] understands that there is no guarantee of
permanent light duty.
(9) Management understands that there may be times when [complainant]
is physically unable to work a full eight hour day on light duty.
By letter to the agency dated August 16, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency reinstate the above-referenced complaints for processing.
In its December 4, 2002 determination, the agency concluded that it did
not breach the settlement agreement.
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).
In the instant case, complainant contends that the agency breached
provision (9) of the settlement agreement by requesting medical
documentation before granting his request for sick leave. However,
neither provision (9), nor any other provision in the settlement
agreement requires the agency to alter its leave and attendance policies
or procedures. Complainant also states that the agency breached the
settlement agreement by not providing him with light duty work in
accordance with his medical restrictions. The record indicates that
on October 15, 2002, the agency presented complainant with a limited
duty job offer. Complainant does not argue that this October 15, 2002
offer somehow did not comply with the settlement agreement. Therefore,
we find that complainant has failed to show that the agency is not in
compliance with the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding that the September 6, 2000
settlement agreement had not been breached 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
May 22, 2003
__________________
Date