01A13497_r
09-07-2001
David L. Szprejda, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
David L. Szprejda v. United States Postal Service
01A13497
September 7, 2001
.
David L. Szprejda,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13497
Agency No. 4-I-530-0018-01
DECISION
Complainant appealed to this Commission from the agency's final
decision, dated April 23, 2001, finding no breach of the November 30,
2000 settlement agreement into which the parties entered. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that, �[a named management official
(M1)] agrees to conduct floor talks at least once a week starting the
week after Christmas for at least 3 months.�
By letter dated January 15, 2001, complainant informed the agency that no
floor talks had been conducted. Complainant sent a second letter, dated
March 20, 2001, noting that only three floor talks were conducted, and
requesting that the agency reinstate his complaint. In a third letter,
dated April 12, 2001, complainant noted that the agreement provided for
M1 to conduct the floor talks, and again requested reinstatement of the
settled matter.
In its April 23, 2001 decision, the agency acknowledged that management
failed to begin the weekly floor talks until January 25, 2001, and failed
to hold them every week thereafter for three months. The agency noted
that floor talks were conducted on January 25, January 31, February 8,
February 14, February 22, and March 26, 2001. It explained that M1
could not begin the talks on time, nor conduct all of the talks held,
because of an illness in his family. The agency found, however, that
it was in compliance with the agreement since M1 began the talks, and
agreed to extend them for three additional months, starting in April 2001.
On appeal, complainant argues that the agreement provides for M1 to
conduct the talks because any other presenter would only �read off a
paper and not discuss the problems.� He notes that only three talks were
conducted by M1, and contends that allowing other officials to facilitate
the talks breached the agreement. Complainant argues that he was never
informed of M1's scheduling dilemma, that no talks were held until after
complainant initially claimed breach, and that the talks were not held
weekly in March 2001.
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.
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 intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
not some unexpressed intention, 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 generally
has 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 agency breached the agreement by not conducting
the floor talks as often as specified in the agreement, and by allowing
other officials to conduct them. The agreement clearly provides for M1
to conduct the talks, but the agency admits that other officials have
conducted several of the talks, and will continue to do so in the future.
As a result, the agency has breached the agreement, and must reinstate
the settled matter.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED
for reinstatement of the underlying matter.
ORDER
The agency must reinstate the settled matter from the point processing
ceased. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision
becomes final, the agency must provide complainant with written
notification that the settled matter is reinstated, and begin processing
the matter in accordance with EEOC Regulations. Further, the agency must
forward a copy of the written notification to the Compliance Officer as
provided below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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 7, 2001
__________________
Date