01994755
01-06-2000
Clyde E. Walker, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific/Western), Agency.
Clyde E. Walker, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01994755
) Agency No. 4-E-840-0078-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(Pacific/Western), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On January 19, 1999, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated December 16, 1998, finding
that it was in compliance with the terms of the August 31, 1998 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered. 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); EEOC Order
No. 960, as amended.<1>
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that from 06-21-97
through 07-04-98, [complainant] will be paid and identified as a grade
PS-05, Step 0, Special Delivery Clerk. This record will appear in
[complainant's] official personnel file identified as an EEO settlement
agreement.
By letter to the agency dated December 1, 1998, 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 pay him the difference
between $37,623.00 (PS-05, Step 0) and $35,178.00 (PS-03, Step 0)equaling,
$2445.00.
In its December 16, 1998 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach
the terms of the settlement agreement when it paid complainant $1767.74
because the agency had to subtract the proper withholdings.
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, the language of the agreement is clear and
unambiguous. Therefore, the Commission will apply this doctrine in
rendering its decision and thus will not consider extrinsic evidence.
The agreement, in relevant part, states, �from period 06-21-97 through
07-04-98 I will be paid and identified as a grade PS-05, Step 0, Special
Delivery Clerk�. In analyzing the above clause, the Commission finds that
in order for the agency not to have breached the agreement, it needed to
place complainant in the same position he would have been in if he was
initially compensated at the PS-05 Step 0 grade. It is undisputed that
the agency has compensated complainant. In fact, the agency has paid
complainant the exact amount to place him in the position he would have
been in if he was initially paid at the PS-05 Step 0 level. Therefore,
the
Commission finds that the agency did not violate the settlement agreement
by paying complainant $1767.74 as opposed to $2445.00. Accordingly,
the agency's decision is affirmed.<2>
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:
January 6, 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 complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant1On 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.
2Since complainant does not dispute the accuracy of the withholdings, the
Commission will defer to the agency that its calculations were precise.