01A44282_r
09-17-2004
Teresa J. Powell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Teresa J. Powell v. United States Postal Service
01A44282
September 17, 2004
.
Teresa J. Powell,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44282
Agency Nos. 4H-370-0199-03; 4H-370-0024-03
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's May 13, 2004
decision finding that it was not in breach of a settlement agreement.
On October 27, 2003, the parties resolved complainant's complaints by
entering into a settlement agreement which provided, in pertinent part,
that complainant would receive the following:
Management agrees to reduce the L.O.W. (July 30, 2003) to an Official
Discussion.
Complainant agrees not to discuss the terms of the L.O.W. reduction
to anyone except for the written notice submitted to the union from
management.
Management agrees to provide an equal opportunity to the complainant
with respect to working in a relief capacity within the B.M.E.U.
Complainant agrees, if a customer disagrees with the explanation offered
by the complainant, or the customer becomes hostile, the complainant
will immediately notify supervisory personnel.
Management agrees to provide the complainant the opportunity to respond
in detail (to the supervisor) about any customer complaints.
Complainant agrees to not respond to management in a defensive manner
when approached about customer complaints.
By letter to the agency dated March 22, 2004, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. The agency issued
a decision finding it was not in breach of the settlement agreement.
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).
Complainant appears to be arguing that the agency breached provisions 3
and 4 of the settlement agreement. Complainant has failed to show that
the agency breached provision 3 of the settlement agreement because she
has not shown that she was denied any opportunity, let alone an equal
opportunity, to work in a relief capacity within the B.M.E.U. Regarding
provision 4 of the settlement agreement, we find that this provision
only requires complainant's performance and not the agency's performance.
We find that complainant has not shown breach of the settlement agreement.
The agency's 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
September 17, 2004
__________________
Date