01990593
12-08-1999
Cecil Hayes, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cecil Hayes, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01990593
William J. Henderson, ) Agency Nos. 4-G-780-0224-98
Postmaster General, ) 4-G-780-0245-98
United States Postal Service, ) 4-G-780-0291-98
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On October 24, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final agency decision (FAD), dated October 5, 1998,
finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the July 24,
1998 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 Regulations 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402, .504(b)); EEOC
Order No. 960, as amended.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The Letter of Warning issued February 20, 1998 be expunged from all
records including the disciplinary file located in the Labor Relations
file in accordance with START Resolution dated May 6, 1998.
By letter to the agency dated September 23, 1998, complainant
alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement,
and requested that the agency specifically implement the its terms.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to permit him
or his representative to review complainant's file in the Austin Labor
Office, in order to remove the Letter of Warning (LOW).
On October 5, 1998, the agency issued a FAD, finding no breach of the
settlement agreement. The agency determined that the LOW had been
removed from complainant's file. Further, the agency stated that �it
is not normal policy for employees to review the administrative files�
and that the agreement simply provided that the LOW would be expunged.
The agreement did not state that complainant would be allowed to review
the file or personally pull the LOW.
The record in this case contains a statement prepared by an agency
official dated October 5, 1998, that indicated complainant's file was
reviewed and that the LOW �was pulled.�
EEOC Regulation 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified
at 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, we find that the agency has complied with the
settlement agreement. Applying the plain meaning rule, the Commission
determines that the settlement language clearly states that the LOW would
be expunged from all records including complainant's disciplinary file
located in the Labor Relations file. The record contains the statement
of an agency official reflecting that complainant's file was reviewed and
that the LOW was removed. The agreement does not state that complainant
would be permitted to review the file. To the extent that complainant
interpreted the provisions of the settlement agreement as requiring that
agency officials provide him with the personal opportunity to review the
Austin Labor Office file to ascertain that the LOW had been expunged,
such interpretation should have been reduced to writing as part of the
settlement agreement. Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration ,
EEOC Appeal No. 01951903 (March 4, 1987).
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement
agreement was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
Dec. 8, 1999
____________________________
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 complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant
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.