01985322
10-14-1999
Sylvia V. Morales, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sylvia V. Morales, )
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01985322
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 1F-901-1503-93
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On June 22, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated May 20, 1998, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the October 24, 1996 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. ��1614.402,
.504(b); EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
The record reflects that appellant pursued the EEO complaint process
on a complaint (Complaint No. 1F-901-1503-93) that she and the agency
settled on October 24, 1996.
The settlement agreement contained, in pertinent part, the following
provision:
(2)As to case 1F-901-1503-93: management agrees to cooperate with the
counselee/complainant in her quest to relocate to another facility by
(a) having made a review of her sick leave and making sure that any
usage that would appropriately be credited to Family Medical Leave be
designated as such.
On March 6, 1998 appellant met with an EEO counselor regarding alleged
breach of the settlement agreement. Responding to an agency request,
in a letter dated March 17, 1998, the appellant alleged that the agency
failed to relocate her to another facility and declined her detail
request four times. She requested relocation to another facility or
reassignment to another area.
In its May 20, 1998 FAD, the agency found no breach of the settlement
agreement. The agency determined that a review of appellant's sick
leave was completed and that any usage was credited to FMLA. Further,
the FAD noted that the Los Angeles Post Office �has no control over
other postal facilities accepting [appellant's] request for transfer.�
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 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, we find that the agency has complied with the
settlement agreement. Provision 2(a) of the settlement agreement
dictated an affirmative agency obligation to review appellant's sick
leave record and assure that any usage that would properly be credited to
Family Medical Leave be so designated. The record contains no evidence
reflecting that the agency has failed to meet this obligation. Appellant
alleged that the agency breached the settlement agreement by purportedly
failing to secure her relocation. The Commission finds, however, that
the settlement agreement does not require the agency to take this action.
To the extent that appellant interpreted the settlement agreement as
mandating that the agency secure her relocation, such interpretation
should have been reduced to writing as part of the settlement agreement.
See Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration, EEOC Appeal
No. 019851903 (March 4, 1987). Accordingly, the agency's decision
finding no breach of the settlement agreement was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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:
October 14, 1999
__________________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations