Henry Cabone, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 10, 2000
01985223 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 10, 2000)

01985223

08-10-2000

Henry Cabone, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Henry Cabone v. United States Postal Service

01985223

August 10, 2000

Henry Cabone, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985223

v. ) Agency No. 1F933101496

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the final agency

decision (FAD) dated June 15, 1998, in which the agency determined that

it had not breached a settlement agreement (SA) entered into March 21,

1997.<1> This timely<2> appeal is accepted in accordance with the

provisions of 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUES PRESENTED

The issues presented are: (1) whether complainant's allegation that

the agency breached the SA was raised in an untimely manner; and (2)

whether the agency violated the terms of its settlement agreement with

complainant.

BACKGROUND

The SA provided, in pertinent part, that:

In exchange for the promises made by the Agency...the Complainant agrees

not to institute a lawsuit...; and the Complainant hereby withdraws

all formal and informal EEOC Complaints filed before today's date on

the issue. The Complainant will refrain from filing any other complaints

on these same issues for the timeframes involved....

Complainant agrees to follow instructions from this point forward.

If all instructions are followed between today's date and April 30, 1997,

the letter of warning dated April 15, 1996 shall be removed from his OPF.

If all instructions are follow[ed] between today's date and August 30,

1997, the 7 day suspension dated April 30, 1996 shall be removed from

his OPF [Official Personnel Folder]. There will be no backpay.

The Complainant agrees that this settlement is without prejudice to

the 14 day suspension issued to the Complainant on Jan[uary] 2, 1997.

The Complainant agrees to not pursue a reduction of the 14 day suspension

based upon this EEOC settlement and/or the reduction of the prior

discipline.

The Agency agrees to provide a lump sum to the [Complainant], in the

amount of $400.00 minus taxes, for any overtime opportunities lost during

the first half of 1996. This will be processed by the local timekeeping

office.

By letter to the agency dated May 15, 1998, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the SA. Specifically, complainant alleged

that the agency failed to remove an April 15, 1996 letter from his file,

which should have been removed in accordance with the SA. Because the

letter was in his file when it should not have been, it was then cited

in a September 10, 1997 Notice of Proposed Removal, and a May 13, 1998

Notice of Suspension.

In its FAD, the agency conceded that the April 15, 1996 letter was not

removed from complainant's file. It maintained, however, that it had not

breached the SA because complainant was not harmed by the existence of

the letter in his file. The agency found that complainant was not harmed

because the proposed removal was never implemented, and the suspension

was rescinded once the noncompliance with the settlement agreement

was brought to the agency's attention. The agency further asserted

that complainant did not raise his claim of breach in a timely manner.

The Notice of Proposed Removal was dated September 10, 1997, and the

Notice of Suspension was dated May 13, 1998. Complainant brought the

alleged breach to the agency's attention in a letter dated May 15, 1998.

Both of the disciplinary letters provided a space for complainant to sign

and date them to indicate his receipt. The record, however, indicates

that complainant did not sign and date either letter. This appeal

followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified at 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.

That section further provides that if the complainant believes that the

agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement,

the complainant shall notify the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity

of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement agreement 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.

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, and not

some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795

(August 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. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (April 29, 1994)

(citing Hyon O v. U.S. 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, 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 its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant did not bring the

alleged breach to the attention of the agency within 30 days of when he

knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance. We believe that

the agency has not presented persuasive evidence to prove this assertion.

The agency has not demonstrated when complainant knew or should have

known of the September 10, 1997 Notice of Proposed Removal because the

document was not signed and dated by complainant to indicate receipt,

and there is no other document to demonstrate when complainant was made

aware of the Notice of Proposed Removal. Also, complainant notified the

agency of the alleged breach just two days after the date on the May 13,

1998 Notice of Suspension. The agency, therefore, has not demonstrated

that complainant contacted the agency about the alleged noncompliance

in an untimely manner.

Further, we disagree with the agency's assertion that they did not

breach the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement states that

if "all instructions are followed between today's date and April 30,

1997, the letter of warning dated April 15, 1996 shall be removed

from [complainant's] OPF." The record reveals that complainant did

comply with the SA. The agency did not, however, remove the April 15,

1996 warning letter, as evidenced by the fact that this document was

mentioned in the subsequent Notice of Proposed Removal and Notice of

Suspension. The agency even admits in the FAD that "it is clear from

the agreement that the letter of warning dated April 15, 1996 should

not have been cited in the proposed removal dated September 10, 1997

or the suspension notice dated May 13, 1998." The agency, therefore,

breached the settlement agreement.

The agency represented in its FAD that its breach of the SA was moot

because the Proposed Notice of Removal was not carried out, and the

suspension was rescinded once the noncompliance was brought to the

attention of management. We, however, find no evidence in the record

to demonstrate that the breach was cured. It is not evident from the

file that the agency, in fact, removed the April 15, 1996 letter of

warning from complainant's personnel file. Under these circumstances, the

Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence in the record for it

to determine whether or not the agency has cured its breach of the SA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the record in this case, we find that the agency's decision

was improper and it is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the agency

for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to take the following actions within 30 days of

the date this decision becomes final:

1. If the agency has not done so already, the agency shall comply with

the terms of the March 21, 1997 settlement agreement between the agency

and appellant by removing the April 15, 1996 letter of warning from

appellant's OPF.

2. Whether the agency already has complied with the terms of March

21, 1997 settlement agreement, or whether it does so only on remand,

the agency shall submit a report of compliance to the Commission.

The report shall include supporting documentation, including documentary

and testimonial evidence, which demonstrates that the corrective action

has been implemented.

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

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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)

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:

_08-10-00______ __________________________________

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.

2 The agency did not supply a copy of a certified mail return receipt

or any other material capable of establishing the date complainant

received the FAD. Since the agency failed to submit evidence of the

date of receipt, the Commission presumes that complainant's appeal was

filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the agency's final decision.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �

1614.402(a)).