01A13196_r
09-20-2001
Christopher R. Slater, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Christopher R. Slater v. United States Postal Service
01A13196
September 20, 2001
.
Christopher R. Slater,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13196
Agency No. 1G-7610008-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated April 5, 2001, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the December 6, 2000 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Person A] will prepare an IOD Job Offer whereby [complainant]
will continue to work on Tour 1 but will have Sun/Mon as off days (does
not work Sat nite or Sun nite). The aforementioned job offer will be
submitted to [complainant] for execution.
(2) In the event after a month, [complainant] wants to be assigned to
Tour 2 (Day Shift) with Sat and Sun as days off [Person A] agrees to
consult with the Tour 2 MDO to arrange such a change, or make every
effort reasonable to accomplish.
By letter to the agency dated February 17, 2001, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that his complaint be reinstated from the point where processing ceased.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to change his
working schedule from Tour 1 to Tour 2 with Saturday and Sunday off as
promised by the settlement agreement.
In its April 5, 2001 decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach
the settlement agreement. With regard to provision (1), the agency stated
that Person A prepared a Job Offer which was presented to complainant.
With regard to provision (2), the agency stated that Person A contacted
the MDO on Tour 2 in an effort to effect an assignment of complainant
to Tour 2 with Saturday and Sunday off days, but the MDO was unable to
accommodate the reassignment due to the fact that Tour 2 already has a
full complement of Limited Duty employees.
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 present case, we find that complainant has not shown non-compliance
with the December 6, 2000 settlement agreement. According to provision
(2), Person A was to consult with the Tour 2 MDO to arrange for
complainant to be assigned to Tour 2 with Saturday and Sunday as
off days, or make every effort reasonable to accomplish this change.
The agency states that Person A consulted the MDO on Tour 2 in an effort
to have complainant reassigned, however, the Tour 2 MDO stated that she
was unable to accommodate the reassignment based on the fact that Tour
2 has a full complement of Limited Duty employees. We note, however,
that the settlement agreement does not guarantee that complainant will
be assigned to Tour 2 with Saturday and Sunday as off days. Thus, we
find that complainant has not shown that the agency is in non-compliance
with the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision that it did not breach the agreement
is AFFIRMED.
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
September 20, 2001
__________________
Date