01A30990_r
03-26-2003
Stephen F. Foley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Stephen F. Foley v. United States Postal Service
01A30990
March 26, 2003
.
Stephen F. Foley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30990
Agency Nos. 4-B-028-0053-97, 4-B-028-0031-98, 4-B-028-0021-99
DECISION
Complainant filed several EEO complaints that were consolidated for
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Prior to the hearing,
the parties settled the complaints on September 12, 2001. By letter
dated April 9, 2001, complainant complained to his Congressman that the
agency violated his privacy by not safeguarding his OWCP Form CA-20.
Complainant contends that he found the form in the office, where people
should not have access to it. The agency responded to this letter,
denying any inappropriate handling of complainant's confidential medical
records. Complainant then filed the present appeal, arguing that the
violation of his privacy also constituted breach of the September 12,
2001 settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The [agency] agrees to provide [complainant] the limited duty job
assignment attached hereto, at the salary rate specified herein. . . .
It is understood that said assignment, including its continuation,
is subject to change based upon updated medical information (which
information ordinarily is expected to be communicated through OWCP
[Office of Workers' Compensation Program] Form CA-17) and the business
needs of the [agency], subject to all applicable laws and regulations.
In its December 6, 2002 response to complainant's appeal, the agency
admits that it never informed complainant to raise his claims of breach
with its EEO office prior to appealing. The agency denies any breach
of the agreement, finds that his breach allegation concerns a new claim
of discrimination, and instructs complainant to pursue the matter with
an EEO counselor.
Any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, is binding on both
parties. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). 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 parties' intent as
expressed in the contract, not some unexpressed intention, 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 generally has 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). Allegations that subsequent actions of
discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall be processed as
separate complaints. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c).
The instant settlement agreement contains no specific provision regarding
complainant's medical documents. Further, the Commission has held that
jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Privacy Act rests exclusively
with United States District Courts. See Story v. USPS, EEOC Appeal
No. 01953767 (October 18, 1995); Concon v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01965280
(May 14, 1997)(allegation that Privacy Act violated when a supervisor
allegedly allowed a coworker to read appellant's CA-1 form and coworker
discussed its contents with other employees failed to state a claim
because allegation of a Privacy Act violation is not within the purview
of the EEO process); Ogden v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01965916 (July 17,
1997)(allegation that an agency official's letter to DOL's OWCP divulged
private matters and contained an accusation of perjury regarding appellant
and was false and misleading and that the information was considered by
the DOL's OWCP was an impermissible collateral attack on the manner in
which the agency represented itself in the DOL's OWCP forum). See also
Bucci v. Department of Education, EEOC Request No. 05890289 (April 12,
1989)(alleged violation of the Privacy Act is outside the purview of
the EEO process): Osborn v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05950654 (February
15, 1996).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no breach of the
settlement agreement 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
March 26, 2003
__________________
Date