Diana Carroll, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 1, 2000
01993600 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 1, 2000)

01993600

11-01-2000

Diana Carroll, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Diana Carroll v. United States Postal Service

01993600

11-01-00

.

Diana Carroll,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01993600

Agency No. 1H-339-0014-97

Hearing No. 0988356X

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 24, 1999, finding that it

was in compliance with the terms of the September 2, 1998 settlement

agreement into which the parties entered.<1> 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:

[AO-1] agrees to remove from the records of the United States Postal

Service concerning [complainant], the notation that she is not eligible

for rehire by the Postal Service.

(4) [AO-1] agrees to use his best efforts to find a suitable position

of employment with the Postal Service outside the Clerk Craft for

[complainant] as a PTR.

(5) If and when, [AO-1] finds such a position into which he can offer

to rehire [complainant], he will offer that position to her.

If [complainant] does not accept that offer of employment on or before

December 2, 1998, none of the provisions of this agreement shall be

enforceable or binding, and she may continue to pursue the complaint,

which is the subject of this agreement.

By letter to the agency dated March 25, 1999, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that

the agency reinstate her complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged

that the agency failed to comply with provisions (3), (4), and (5)

because the agency failed to notify complainant regarding a position.

Complainant further alleged that the agency failed to comply with

provision (8) because it did not reinstate her complaint when an offer

of employment was not made by December 2, 1998.

In its February 24, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it had not

breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency said that

it did not offer complainant the position that became available because

it wrongly assumed that complainant would not want to commute a long

distance or relocate.

In her statement on appeal, complainant maintains that the agency did

breach the settlement agreement because there is no mention in the

agreement of where complainant will or will not commute. The agency,

therefore, was wrong not to offer her a position merely because they

assumed the commute would be too far for her. Complainant asked that

her complaint be remanded to the agency for a hearing.

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 O 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 Engineering Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

In the instant case, we find that the agency has breached provisions

(5) and (8) of the settlement agreement. The agency admitted that there

was a position that they could have offered complainant, and that their

decision not to was due to a �misunderstanding� on their part. Further,

the agency also did not comply with the agreement because they did not

reinstate complainant's complaint after December 2, 1998, despite the

fact that no offer of employment was accepted by that date.

We hereby VACATE the agency's decision finding that it did not breach

the settlement agreement and REMAND complainant's claims for further

processing in accordance with the applicable regulations, and the ORDER

below.

ORDER

The complaint is remanded to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC

field office for scheduling of a hearing in an expeditious manner.

The agency is directed to submit a copy of the complaint file to the

EEOC Hearings Unit within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final. The agency shall provide written notification

to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below that the

complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter,

the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the complaint in

accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the agency shall issue a final

action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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

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); 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 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(R0400)

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

__11-01-00________________

Date

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:

__________________

Date

______________________________

1On 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.