01993263
04-20-2000
Douglas W. French, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Douglas W. French, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01993263
) Agency No. 1B-031-0001-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed the agency's decision that denied his claim
that the settlement agreement entered into between the parties had been
breached.<1>
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached the settlement
agreement.
BACKGROUND
Complainant filed an informal EEO complaint wherein he claimed that he
was discriminated against on the bases of his sex (male), age (40+),
and disability (unspecified), when on or about September 23, 1998, he
was informed that he had not been selected for the position of Training
Technician. The complaint was resolved by a settlement agreement entered
into on October 19, 1998. The agreement stated in relevant part that:
1. A meeting is established with [the Plant Manager] and two present
mediators.
2. [The Postmaster] will arrange to install a bin near the bid board
for the purpose of holding blank 991 forms.
3. Request through Human Resources to require the addition of two words
when postings require KSA's' postings to read similar to the following:
Applicants must complete and submit PS Form 991 with KSA's.
By letter dated February 4, 1999, complainant notified the agency that
it had breached the first provision of the settlement agreement.
According to complainant, the Plant Manager refused at the meeting
to discuss anything to do with the plant or any of his concerns.
Complainant notes that the meeting did not occur until nearly three
months after the execution of the settlement agreement. Complainant
states that during the alternate dispute resolution process, he raised
several issues that were factors in his decision to file an EEO complaint,
and that the Postmaster stated that she could not address any of those
issues and that someone from the plant would be better suited to discuss
those matters. Complainant claims that during the settlement process
of the alternate dispute resolution program, a meeting with the Plant
Manager to discuss his concerns was inserted in the settlement agreement.
Complainant requested that his complaint be reinstated.
In its final decision dated February 12, 1999, the agency determined
that the settlement agreement had not been breached. The agency stated
that a meeting pursuant to the agreement occurred on January 11, 1999.
The agency noted that present at the meeting were complainant, the Plant
Manager, and two mediators. The agency concluded that it had satisfied
the first provision of the agreement, and it denied complainant's request
for reinstatement of his complaint.
On appeal, complainant states that prior to the meeting with the Plant
Manager, two EEO officials asked him what he wanted to discuss with the
Plant Manager. Complainant claims that he informed them that the issues
concerned the plant. According to complainant, a meeting with the Plant
Manager was inserted in the settlement agreement so that he could discuss
with the Plant Manager the concerns he raised at the beginning of the
alternate dispute resolution process. Complainant maintains that at
the meeting on January 11, 1999, the Plant Manager was only willing to
discuss the hiring process, a matter in which his knowledge was lacking.
In response, the agency asserts that it complied with the language set
forth in the first term of the settlement. The agency submits a letter
from one of the mediators to support its position. In that letter,
the mediator stated that complainant asked the Plant Manager questions
unrelated to the issues raised in the EEO complaint. According to the
mediator, complainant abruptly ended the meeting when the Plant Manager
refused to speak about issues that were not related to the EEO complaint.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of
the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b)) provides that the agency shall resolve
the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the agency has
not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the complainant is not
satisfied with the agency's attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant
may appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the
agency has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement or action.
The complainant may file such an appeal 35 days after he or she has served
the agency with the allegations of noncompliance, but must file an appeal
within 30 days of his or her receipt of an agency's determination.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant matter, complainant claims that the agency breached the
settlement agreement by not
allowing him to discuss issues related to the plant at the meeting held
on January 11, 1999. It is clear that complainant sought to raise issues
that were not encompassed in his EEO complaint. It is also clear that
the Plant Manager rejected complainant's attempt to discuss these issues
and that he was only willing to discuss the hiring process. We note
that the relevant provision of the agreement specified that a meeting
would occur. Complainant maintains that this provision was inserted in
the agreement so that he would be able to raise these additional concerns
with the Plant Manager. Complainant has not presented evidence to support
this position. We find that the topics for the meeting were reasonably
limited to the scope of the EEO complaint, that being the hiring process.
Accordingly, we find that the settlement agreement was not breached,
and the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
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
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); 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 (S0400)
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:
April 20, 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 1 On 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.