01A30487_r
05-20-2003
Tammy J. Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tammy J. Williams v. United States Postal Service
01A30487
May 20, 2003
.
Tammy J. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30487
Agency No. 4J-460-0019-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated September 20, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a January 10, 2002 settlement agreement.
The January 10, 2002 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,
that:
(1) The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is the appropriate
authority for adjudicating workers' compensation claims, reconsiderations,
and appeals of denied claims. Local Management agrees to diligently
research documentation and expedite the processing of information relevant
to the Complainant's claims from December 25, 2000 and September 3, 2001
injuries on duty. If necessary to explain the delay in submission of
the required forms, management agrees to provide an affidavit addressing
the delay caused through no fault of the Complainant. Management agrees
to provide the Complainant with a status report as soon as information
is provided or not later than 30-day intervals.
(2) Should a future interaction between the Complainant and the
supervisor need intervention, Postmaster shall be available to facilitate
communication between the parties. In the absence of the Postmaster,
the designee shall be [Employee A].
(3) Additionally, the Postmaster will determine what, if any, conflict
resolution course is available and will enroll [Employee A] and himself
and participate as appropriate.
By letter to the agency dated May 4, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that
the original complaint be reinstated for processing. Specifically,
complainant alleged that no action had been taken by the agency after
the settlement agreement. Complainant noted that she had yet to receive
a written report, that no letter stating agency fault for the delay in
processing forms had been sent, and that she continued to be harassed
by her supervisor with no intervention or training classes for the
supervisor.
In its September 20, 2002 decision, the agency found no breach. The
agency stated that the Postmaster was on extended sick leave, but that
complainant met with a management official and provided her with medical
documents and bills. The agency found that the information was then
forwarded to �Injury Compensation� on May 9, 2002 (which complainant was
informed of on May 17, 2002), and then sent to the Department of Labor.
The agency also determined that Employee A and complainant's supervisor
were scheduled for the next available human relations training class,
that complainant had been updated with status reports from the named
management official on April 30 and May 17, 2002, and that the officer
in charge had been advised of the possible need of immediate intervention.
On appeal, complainant asserts that management never diligently researched
documentation or expedited the process, that it admitted it was at
fault for the delayed submission of required forms but never provided
an affidavit addressing the delay, and never provided status reports.
Complainant specifically claims that rather than researching or expediting
the process, the former Postmaster had �tossed� her documents in a �tub
of trash.� Complainant also asserts that, contrary to the agency's
statement in its decision, no status reports were given to her on April
30 and May 17, 2002, and that she had only received a copy of the letter
forwarding medical documents to Injury Compensation and a letter from
Injury Compensation stating her claims had previously been denied.
Finally, complainant claims that she has never been informed of her
supervisor being scheduled for a human relations course.
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).
We find the record is insufficient to determine the agency's compliance
with the January 10, 2002 settlement agreement. The record contains
evidence reflecting that the agency forwarded some of complainant's
medical information to the Injury Compensation office on May 9, 2002,
and that complainant was then informed in a May 17, 2002 letter from that
office that the documentation had been forwarded to the Department of
Labor; however, there is no other evidence in the record specifically
related to complainant's breach claims. We also note that the agency's
decision failed to respond to complainant's assertion that it has not
provided an affidavit explaining that the delay in submitting required
forms was not complainant's fault.
Because we cannot ascertain from the present record whether or not the
provisions of the January 10, 2002 settlement agreement were breached,
the agency's final decision finding no breach of the instant settlement
agreement is VACATED. This matter is REMANDED to the agency for further
processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:
(1) The agency shall investigate whether the agency: diligently researched
and expedited documentation relevant to complainant's injury compensation
claims; provided status reports (as outlined in the settlement agreement)
and an affidavit explaining that the delay in submitting required forms
was not complainant's fault; and took action as specified in the agreement
to schedule training and to facilitate any necessary intervention
between complainant and her supervisor. The agency shall supplement
the record with any relevant documentation obtained as a result of its
investigation, including affidavits from complainant and her supervisor,
the agency official named in its September 20, 2002 decision as forwarding
documents to Injury Compensation and providing status reports, Employee A,
and the current Postmaster of the relevant facility.
(2) Within 30 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall issue a new determination as to whether the agency
breached the provisions of the settlement agreement.
A copy of the agency's new determination regarding compliance with
the settlement agreement must be sent to the Compliance Officer as
referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. 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 (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
May 20, 2003
__________________
Date