01a01279
05-22-2000
Scott C. Andrews, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Scott C. Andrews, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A01279
) Agency No. 4-G-780-0039-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated September 17, 1999, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the January 15, 1999 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to
as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that management
would:
(1) expunge from complainant's personnel file a letter of warning issued
September 8, 1998, and all other related documentation;
(2) issue complainant a letter of recognition for carrying out his duties;
and,
(3) reimburse complainant $2.70 in postage costs incurred.
By letter to the agency dated September 8, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency had failed to act on a March 1, 1999 EEO complaint which he
filed alleging breach of the settlement agreement, and he requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. The agency appears to have
treated complainant's September 8, 1999 letter as notification to the EEO
Director of noncompliance pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504. By letter
dated September 17, 1998, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement had not been breached. In support of this conclusion, the
agency produced an unsworn statement from complainant's supervisor noting
that complainant was presented with the commendation for his work and
the postage reimbursement on January 16, 1999. The agency also produced
a letter from a manager stating that she had confirmed that the letter
of warning was removed from complainant's file by a labor representative
on or about May 22, 1999.<2>
The relevant regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be
codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(a)), provide 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 instant case, complainant has failed to meet his burden to
demonstrate that the settlement agreement has been breached. In the
absence of a time requirement in the settlement agreement for removal
of the letter of warning and related documents, the agreement is
construed to require compliance within a reasonable time. The record
establishes that the letter of warning was removed in a reasonable
time, and complainant has not identified what related documents,
if any, remain in his personnel file. With respect to the letter of
commendation, complainant does not dispute the agency's contention that
it was issued to him, but rather contends that a copy should have been
placed in his personnel file. The terms of the settlement agreement,
however, specifically provide only that the agency will "issue" the
letter, not that it will be placed in complainant's personnel file.
Moreover, complainant has not adduced evidence that the agency, in the
ordinary course, includes such letters in its employees' personnel files.
Interpretations cannot be enforced where they were not reduced to writing
as part of the settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye v. General Services
Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 019851903 (March 4, 1987). We have
previously held that if a settlement agreement is made in good faith and
is otherwise valid, it will not be set aside simply because it appears
that one of the parties made a poor bargain. See Ingram v. General
Services Administration, EEOC Request No. 05880565 (June 14, 1988).<3>
Accordingly, the FAD finding no breach of the settlement agreement is
hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 22, 2000
Date
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised
regulations governing the EEOC's federal sector complaint process
went into effect. These regulations apply to all federal sector
EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative process.
Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations found
at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2Complainant has submitted documents on appeal which include a statement
dated April 10, 1999, from a union representative which states that
the agency actually removed the letter of warning in question in March,
1999, but that related documents remained in the file. Complainant has
not identified what related documents are at issue.
3 Nothing precludes complainant, however, from requesting that the
agency, in its discretion, include the letter of commendation in his
personnel file, notwithstanding that this is not required by the express
terms of the settlement agreement.