01a01039
04-12-2000
Barbara Oliver, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Barbara Oliver, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A01039
) Agency Nos. 1G-721-1002-95
William J. Henderson, ) 4G-720-1153-96
Postmaster General, ) 4G-720-1146-96
United States Postal Service, ) 4G-720-0232-97
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On November 16, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated October 15,
1999, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the May 10,
1999 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2. In exchange for satisfactory fulfillment by the Agency of the promises
contained in paragraph (3) of this Agreement, the Complainant agrees to
withdraw the above-referenced complaint.
3. In exchange for the promises contained in paragraph (2) of this
Agreement, the Agency agrees:
Agency will pay complainant $1,250.00 lump sum. Complainant will be
responsible for all applicable taxes.
Complainant agrees to withdraw all other pending EEO complaints against
the Postal Service upon the granting of disability retirement from OPM.
This constitutes full settlement of this complaint.
By letter to the agency dated August 16, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the settlement agreement was contingent upon her receiving
disability retirement benefits (benefits). Complainant further alleged,
thus, the agency was required to reinstate all four of her complaints
that were pending at the time of the settlement agreement because the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) affirmed the Office of Personnel
Management's (OPM) denial of her benefits.
In its October 15, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that only paragraph
3.b., which addressed the withdrawal of complaint numbers 4G-720-1153-96
(1153-96) , 4G-720-1146-96 (1146-96), and 4G-720-0232-97 (0232-97), was
contingent upon complainant's receipt of benefits. The agency further
stated that paragraph 2, which addressed the withdrawal of complaint
number 1G-721-1002-95 (1002-95), was contingent only upon the agency
paying complainant a lump sum of $1250.00.
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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, based on the record, 1002-95 was withdrawn solely
in exchange for a lump sum payment of $1,250.00 and 1153-96, 1146-96, and
0232-97 were withdrawn in exchange for the lump sum payment but contingent
upon complainant's receipt of benefits. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the FAD
denying complainant reinstatement of complaint number 1G-721-1002-95
and granting her reinstatement of complaint numbers 4G-720-1153-96,
4G-720-1146-96, and 4G-720-0232-97 from the point processing ceased.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
April 12, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to petitioner, petitioner's representative
(if applicable), the agency, and the MSPB on:
_______________ __________________________
Date
FOR OFO MERIT CASES - INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY
INITIALDATETO: CARLTON M. HADDENTO: HILDA RODRIGUEZAPPEAL
NUMBER01A01039AGENCY NUMBER 1G-721-1002-95, 4G-720-1153-96,
4G-720-1146-96, 4G-720-0232-97REQUEST NUMBERHEARING NUMBERTHE ATTACHED
DECISION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
TITLE
NAMES
INITIAL
DATE REVIEWED
(ATTORNEY):
Alexis Dobbins
April 10, 2000
(SUPERVISOR):
Mary Jean Moore
(DIVISION DIRECTOR):
Special Project
COMPLAINANT(S):
Barbara Oliver
AGENCY:
U.S. Postal Service
DECISION:
Affirmed
STATUTE(S) ALLEGED:
N/A
BASIS(ES) ALLEGED:
SB
ISSUE(S) ALLEGED:
B1
WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS FOUND (ONLY):
(A) BASIS(ES) FOR FINDING:
(B) ISSUES IN FINDING:
TYPIST/DATE/DISKETTE
ad1 / April 10, 2000
SPELL CHECK
YES
TEAM PROOFED
DATE
(CHECK ALL APPLICABLE CODES)
MERIT DECISION
MERIT DECISION (CONTINUED)
X 4A - MERITS DECISION
? 4B - OFO FOUND DISCRIMINATION
LIST BASIS CODES:__________________________________
LIST ISSUE CODES:__________________________________
? 4C - OFO FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION
? 4R - OFO FOUND SETTLEMENT BREACH
X 4S - OFO FOUND NO SETTLEMENT BREACH
? 4E - AGENCY FOUND DISCR./BREACH
x 4F - AGENCY FOUND NO DISCR./BREACH
? 4H - OFO AFFIRMED AGENCY
? 4I - OFO REVERSED AGENCY
? 4J - OFO MODIFIED AGENCY:
(NOTE): IF AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN
PART, THEN (3L) CODE REQUIRED IF AT LEAST
ONE ISSUE IS REMANDED.
? 3L - OFO REMANDED PART OF AGENCY'S MERITS
DECISION. IF BREACH IS BASIS, USE OF (3L) ALSO
REQUIRES (4I) CODE.
? 3P - ADVERSE INFERENCE
? 4K - AJ FOUND DISCRIMINATION
? 4L - AJ FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION
? 4M - AJ MADE NO FINDING
? 4N - OFO AFFIRMED AJ
? 4O - OFO REVERSED AJ
? 4P - OFO MODIFIED AJ
? 4T - AJ ISSUED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION
? 4U - OFO AFFIRMED AJ SUMMARY JUDGMENT
? 4V - OFO REVERSED AJ SUMMARY JUDGMENT
? 3H - OFO DENIED ATTORNEY'S FEES
? 3I - OFO APPROVED ATTORNEY'S FEES
? 3J - OFO MODIFIED ATTORNEY'S FEES
? 4Q - COMPLIANCE REQUIRED
REVISED - (2/3/00)
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.