0120064460
09-25-2007
Sirilo Santiago Jr, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sirilo Santiago Jr,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200644601
Agency No. 1C442005702
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 18, 2006, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the April 5, 2004 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 provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Complainant] will remain working at the Boardman Station until the
current custodian [C1] returns to full duty, retires, or his current
injury is resolved. At that time, [complainant] will resume his bid
position at the Poland Station.
On May 8, 2006, complainant was ordered back to the Poland Station.
The record reflects that complainant filed a pre-complaint form with
the agency dated May 18, 2006 complainant alleged that the agency was
in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the agency
provide him with overtime for work conducted at the Boardman Station
and any monetary sanctions or fines. In its July 18, 2006 FAD, the
agency concluded that it did not breach the term of the settlement
agreement as alleged. Specifically, the agency found that C1's ankle
injury, which was the injury at issue, was resolved since C1's Office of
Worker's Compensation Program (OWCP) claim was disallowed by letter dated
October 19, 2004. The record indicates that C1's medical benefits and
continuing compensation was disallowed, and he was returned to full duty.
Therefore, the agency determined that it had not breached the term of the
settlement agreement. Complainant appealed the FAD to the Commission.
As a preliminary matter, we note that on appeal, we review the FAD issued
without a hearing de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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).
We find that based on the plain meaning of the settlement agreement,
complainant has failed to show that the agency breached the terms of
the settlement agreement. Specifically, the terms of the settlement
agreement provided that he would be permitted to work at the Boardman
Station until C1 either returns to full duty, retires, or his ankle
injury is resolved. The record reflects that in a decision dated October
19, 2004, OWCP terminated C1's claim for compensation and benefits and
that his injury was resolved. In a document dated January 26, 2006, C1
was cleared to resume working 4 hours a day with certain restrictions.
We find that the agency complied with the terms of the agreement since
the record reflects that C1's injury was resolved, therefore, the agency
did not breach the settlement agreement when it ordered complainant back
to the Poland Station on May 8, 2006. As such, we find that complainant
failed to establish that the agency breached the terms of the settlement
agreement. The Commission affirms the agency's FAD finding that it
complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.
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
____9/25/07______________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the
above referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
2
0120064460
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120064460