01984228
05-25-2000
Harold R. Staley, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Harold R. Staley, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
01984228
May 25, 2000
Harold R. Staley, Jr., )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01984228
) Agency No. 4-J-481-1004-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
__________________________________ )
DECISION
Complainant filed the instant appeal from an agency decision dated May
5, 1998 finding that the agency did not breach the settlement agreement
entered into by the parties on December 6, 1996.<1>
The settlement agreement provided (in part): "The U.S. Postal Service
will allow the [complainant] to use a mail satchel cart in the performance
of his assigned duties as a Letter Carrier." The instant matter was the
subject of a prior Commission decision in Staley, Jr. v. USPS, EEOC Appeal
No. 01974593 (Feb. 26, 1998). The prior Commission decision vacated the
agency's finding of no breach of the satchel provision and remanded the
matter to the agency for a supplemental investigation so that the agency
could determine what conditions were placed on complainant's use of the
satchel cart. Id.
The agency found in its decision that it had not breached the satchel
provision of the agreement. On appeal complainant argues that the agency
is breaching the agreement by placing conditions on the carrying of flat
mail in the "crook of his arm."
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be
codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a)) provides
that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
parties shall be binding on both parties. If the complainant believes
that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, then the complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the
alleged noncompliance "within 30 days of when the complainant knew
or should have known of the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement
agreement be specifically implemented or request that the complaint be
reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
and not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's
construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05900795 (Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296
(7th Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if
there is a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the
intent of the parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule.
Wong v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing Hyon
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2, 1991)). This rule states that
if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, then its
meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without
any resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery
Elevator v. Building Engineering Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
In an affidavit the Postmaster stated that "complainant uses a mail
satchel cart on a daily basis." In an affidavit the Supervisor of
Customer Services stated that complainant is under her immediate
supervision and that:
Specifically, on February 5, 1997, I observed the complainant delivering
his bid route . . . using a satchel cart. He was holding only letter
mail in his hand, no flat mail, which will significantly add to the
delivery time of a route. I instructed him at that time to hold a few
pieces of marriage mail and some flats in his arm to eliminate dipping
in the cart at every stop. . . . He has been allowed to use a satchel
cart since the settlement. Nothing in the settlement . . . states that
he cannot hold some mail in his arms.
The Commission finds that complainant has failed to show that the agency
breached the satchel provision of the settlement agreement. The record
shows that complainant has been allowed to use the satchel cart. There is
no requirement in the agreement that complainant must be permitted to
use the satchel cart exclusively.
The agency's determination finding that the agency did not breach the
settlement agreement 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:
May 25, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.