0120080173
08-09-2011
Russell O. Mobley, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Russell O. Mobley,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080173
Agency No. 4H-335-0340-98
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an Agency
determination dated August 30, 2007, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the September 17, 1998 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s determination.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the Agency violated the terms of the
September 17, 1998 settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
On September 17, 1998, during a REDRESS mediation, Complainant and the
Agency entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement
was signed by Complainant, his attorney, two management officials (M1,1
M2), a union representative, and the mediator. The settlement agreement
provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. Complainant … agrees to withdraw and not pursue EEO complaint
#4H-335-0340-96 … by accepting the modified carrier position offered
to him.
2. [M1] agrees to pay [Complainant] his regular salary beginning
September 12, 1998.
By PS Form 2564-A, Information for Pre-Complaint Counseling filed on
July 17, 2007, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the
settlement agreement. Complainant listed the Postmaster (PM) and the
Manager, Customer Service Operations (M3) of the Tampa, Florida Post
Office as the responsible management officials. Although the form did
not specify the nature of the alleged breach, the record reflects that
Complainant believed the Agency breached the settlement agreement when
it discontinued its practice of giving him two hours of Administrative
Leave (AL) a week.
In its August 30, 2007 determination, the Agency concluded that no
breach of the settlement agreement occurred. Although Complainant
began receiving two hours of AL a week after the settlement agreement in
1998, the Agency found that there was no mention of the practice in the
settlement agreement. The Agency cited the following statements by M3:
(a) PM asked him to research leave usage and provide an explanation; (b)
when he asked why Complainant was receiving two hours of AL a week, he
was told that it was part of the September 17, 1998 settlement agreement;
(c) further investigation revealed that there was no mention of the AL
in the settlement agreement; and (d) he informed Complainant in a July
2007 meeting that the Agency would be discontinuing its practice of
giving him two hours of AL a week.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal,2 Complainant contended that M1 verbally awarded him two hours
of AL a week during the REDRESS mediation. In addition, Complainant
asserted that, when previously questioned by upper management about his
AL, M2 consistently stated that the AL was part of his REDRESS settlement.
Finally, Complainant argued that, in order to determine whether the
Agency breached the settlement agreement, the Commission should ask the
individuals present at the REDRESS mediation what they heard M1 say to
him about the AL.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request
No. 05960032 (Dec. 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. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(Aug. 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. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 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. Bldg. Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency did not breach the
September 17, 1998 settlement agreement when it discontinued its practice
of giving Complainant two hours of AL a week. In the instant case, the
Agency agreed in the settlement agreement to pay Complainant his regular
salary beginning September 12, 1998 in exchange for Complainant’s
withdrawal of his EEO complaint and acceptance of the modified carrier
position offered to him. There is no language in the settlement agreement
referencing an obligation by the Agency to provide Complainant with two
hours of AL a week. On appeal, Complainant asserted that M1 verbally
awarded him the AL during the REDRESS mediation. However, this was
not memorialized in the settlement agreement. We find the language of
the agreement to be clear and unambiguous on its face; therefore, its
meaning must be interpreted from the four corners of the instrument.
In addition, we note that the settlement agreement specified that the
listed provisions were “a complete and final settlement of the subject
matter.” Accordingly, we find that the Agency did not breach the
settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
_____8/09/11_____________
Date
1 The record reflects that M1 is now retired from the Agency.
2 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b) provides that the Agency may submit a response
to the Commission within 30 days of receiving notice of the appeal.
The record reflects that Complainant mailed a copy of his appeal to
the Agency on October 5, 2007, the Commission sent an acknowledgment
letter to the Agency on October 12, 2007, but the Agency did not submit
a response until April 2, 2008. The Commission declines to consider
the Agency’s April 2, 2008 response, as it was untimely pursuant to
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120091461
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120080173