Harold R. Staley, Jr., Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 25, 2000
01984228_r (E.E.O.C. May. 25, 2000)

01984228_r

05-25-2000

Harold R. Staley, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


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.