0120091642
06-17-2010
Charles E. Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Charles E. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120091642
Agency No. 1F-901-0141-05
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
determination by the Agency dated February 13, 2009, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the July 4, 2005 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
would be reassigned to Tour 1, effective July 30, 2005, and that his days
off would be Sunday/Monday. By letter to the Agency dated December 8,
2008, 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 Agency failed to honor the
settlement agreement in that on December 13, 2008, his days off were
changed to Monday/Tuesday.
In its February 13, 2009 determination, the Agency concluded that
Complainant's days off were changed for operational reasons, namely,
to eliminate EAS extra time and to ensure seven-day coverage by a
certified EAS supervisor in all areas. The final determination found
that making this change to Complainant's schedule, three years after
the settlement agreement was signed, did not constitute a breach of
settlement. The final determination noted that the settlement agreement
did not define the length of time that Complainant would be entitled to
Sunday/Monday as his designated off days.
On appeal, Complainant makes no new arguments. The Agency asks the
Commission to affirm the final determination that there was no breach
of settlement.
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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, the Commission discerns no breach of the settlement
agreement. Complainant was given the schedule promised for a period of
approximately three years after the settlement agreement was executed.
The settlement agreement did not specify the length of time Complainant
would be entitled to such schedule. As such, we find that the Agency
has complied with the agreement.1
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the final determination that the Agency is in compliance with
the July 4, 2005 settlement agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with the
Court 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
___6/17/10_______________
Date
1 The Commission has held that in the absence of a specific time frame in
a settlement agreement, it is interpreted to be for a reasonable amount
of time. Parker v. Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency),
EEOC Request No. 05910576 (August 29, 1991) (agreement that did not
specify length of service for position to which complainant was promoted
was not breached by the temporary detail of complainant two years after
the execution of the settlement agreement.
??
??
??
??
2
0120091642
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120091642