Bruce A. Miller, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 11, 2000
01993328 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 11, 2000)

01993328

08-11-2000

Bruce A. Miller, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Bruce A. Miller v. United States Postal Service

01993328

August 11, 2000

.

Bruce A. Miller,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01993328

Agency No. 4-G-780-1202-96

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a February

17, 1999 final agency decision, finding that it was in compliance with

the terms of the December 4, 1996 settlement agreement into which the

parties entered.<1> The Commission accepts the appeal for review.

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 December 4, 1996 settlement agreement provided as follows:

[The complainant] will be made whole for the incident of 3/30/96 in that

the AWOL will be changed to sick leave as he requested. The total hours

are 7.93 hours. [The complainant] is assured no harassment in any form

is condoned or will be tolerated. [The complainant] will be treated with

dignity and respect the same as all other employees in his unit and no

reprisal action will be taken against him for filing this EEO complaint.

In a notice of breach to the agency, the complainant alleged that the

agency breached the settlement agreement because it retaliated against

him in violation of the �no reprisal� clause of the agreement and failed

to treat him with dignity and respect. Specifically, the complainant

alleged that on December 7, 1998, he was harassed on the telephone by

Supervisor A when he requested more time to complete his mail route

and on October 27, 1998, Supervisor B told him that he was required to

provide medical documentation for a one-day sick leave request.

In its February 17, 1999 final decision, the agency concluded that the

settlement agreement was not breached. It noted that the complainant was

not harassed and that a discussion was held with all employees regarding

attendance. On appeal, the complainant re-argues the issues raised in

his notice of breach and also adds that medical documentation was only

required for sick leave in excess of three days. He also contends that

the agency failed to respond to his notice of breach within 35 days.

Volume 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.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c) provides that allegations that

subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall be

processed as separate complaints, rather than as allegations of breach of

settlement. The Commission finds that the complainant's allegations that

the agency breached the settlement agreement by acts of harassment and

reprisal are allegations that subsequent acts of discrimination violated

the settlement agreement. Such allegations should be processed as a

separate complaint under � 1614.106, rather than as breach allegations.

See Bindal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900225

(August 9, 1990) (a complaint which alleges reprisal in violation of

a settlement agreement's "no reprisal" clause is to be processed as a

separate complaint and not as a breach of settlement). Consequently,

the complainant may, if he so wishes, contact an EEO Counselor pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105 to pursue such allegations as separate non-breach

allegations of discrimination.

Regarding the agency's alleged failure to treat him with dignity and

respect, the Commission finds that provision too vague to allow a

determination as to whether the agency complied with such a provision.

See Bruns v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965395

(June 24, 1997) (provision in settlement agreement that complainant was

to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect was too vague to allow

a determination of whether the agency had complied with the provision);

Dove v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01963814 (January

3, 1997) (provision in settlement agreement requiring management to act

professionally toward complainant was too vague to be enforceable);

Lesnick v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01951082

(February 23, 1996) (provision in settlement agreement that complainant

was to be treated with same respect as that accorded any human too

vague to determine compliance). Any allegation of a breach of such

provisions is analogous to �no reprisal clauses,� and should be raised

as a new allegation. See Rowe v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 01963176 (October 21, 1998). Accordingly, the complainant

may contact an EEO Counselor to pursue his allegations.

Finally, regarding the complainant's assertion that the agency failed

to respond to his notice of appeal within 35 days, the Commission notes

that 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) does not require that the agency respond to

a notice of breach within 35 days. It is the complainant who may file

an appeal to the Commission 35 days after the complainant has provided

the agency with notice of a breach.

Consistent with the foregoing, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 11, 2000

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

______________________________

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.