01a00155
03-21-2000
Daniel T. Lynch, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Daniel T. Lynch, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A00155
) Agency No. 4G-720-0110-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On October 2, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated September
3, 1999, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of three
January 28, 1993 settlement agreements into which complainant contends
the parties entered.<1> 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 copies of the three settlement agreements at issue, as submitted by
both complainant and the agency on appeal, are signed by management but
not by complainant. The agreements provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) complainant will be afforded the right to representation when EEO
matters are discussed with him by management;
(2) management will treat complainant with the same dignity and respect
afforded other employees, and complainant will be advised and encouraged
to seek career growth through the Postal Employee Development Center;
and
(3) management states that complainant did not receive an official
discussion on November 6, 1992, there will be no record of the alleged
official discussion, and it will not be used against complainant in any
manner.
Complainant contends that although it was not memorialized in these
written settlement agreements, the former Acting Station Manager (M1),
now deceased, verbally agreed that complainant would never have to
work under the supervision of a particular manager (M2). The alleged
breach at issue arose on April 30, 1999, when M2 was assigned as the
Acting Station Manager at the agency's Sherwood, Arizona facility,
where complainant is stationed.
By letter to the agency dated May 17, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
contended that the agency failed to honor his alleged verbal agreement
with M1 that complainant would never be assigned to work under the
supervision of M2.
In its September 3, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded: (1) management
had not breached the terms of the 1993 written settlement agreements,
(2) M2 denied that he had agreed he would not accept an assignment at
a location where complainant worked, and there was no evidence that a
verbal agreement to this effect had been made between M1 and complainant;
and (3) even assuming a verbal agreement had been made between M1 and
complainant, it could not be expected to extend beyond M1's tenure.
Pursuant to 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)), 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 concur with the agency's finding that complainant
has failed to establish a breach of an enforceable settlement agreement.
The written agreements at issue contain no provision prohibiting
assignment of complainant and M2 to the same location, and any purported
verbal agreement to this effect between complainant and M1 is not
enforceable under the foregoing standard. With respect to the alleged
verbal agreement between complainant and M1, we find that even if made,
it is unenforceable. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides
in relevant part 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. However, an offer and acceptance
do not constitute an enforceable settlement agreement unless the
agreement reached is in writing and signed by both parties. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.603. Accordingly, the agency properly concluded that no
settlement breach occurred, and the FAD is hereby 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:
3/21/00
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 after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
___________________________
Equal Employment Assistant Date1On 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.