01A14222_r
10-23-2001
Tim Whitworth, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tim Whitworth v. United States Postal Service
01A14222
October 23, 2001
.
Tim Whitworth,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A14222
Agency No. 1-H-351-0037-98
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
agency decision dated June 18, 2001, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the July 30, 1998 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 agrees to withdraw and not pursue his EEO complaint in
light of the accepted apology received from a management official; and
(2) Complainant also agrees to provide adequate up-to-date medical
documentation in order to request light duty restriction and
accommodations, effective immediately.
By letter to the agency dated December 15, 2000, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that
the agency engaged in reprisal when it denied him forty hours per week
of light duty.
In its final decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach the
terms of the settlement agreement. However, the agency determined that
because complainant's claims involve a claim of subsequent discrimination
and reprisal, it will process this matter as a separate complaint.
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).
The Commission finds that the agency properly found no breach of
the settlement agreement. The Commission finds that the terms of the
settlement agreement do not guarantee complainant's placement in a light
duty position. Instead, the agreement merely obligates complainant to
submit current medical documentation so that the agency may evaluate
complainant's request for light duty accommodation. Consequently, we
find that the agency's denial of complainant's request for forty hours
of light duty does not breach the settlement agreement.
Moreover, the Commission notes that on appeal, complainant contends that
the agency engaged in reprisal when it denied his light duty request. The
Commission has held that a claim of reprisal in violation of a settlement
agreement's no reprisal clause is to be processed as a separate
complaint rather than as a breach of the settlement agreement. Bindal
v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900225 (August
9, 1990). Additionally, 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.504(c) provides that
allegations that subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement
agreement shall be processed as separate complaints.
Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's finding of no settlement
breach.
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
October 23, 2001
__________________
Date