Kevin O'Malley, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 12, 2008
0120064540 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 12, 2008)

0120064540

03-12-2008

Kevin O'Malley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro), Agency.


Kevin O'Malley,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(New York Metro),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120064540

Agency No. 1A-073-0020-06

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

agency decision (FAD) dated June 29, 2006, finding that the agency was

in compliance with the terms of the April 14, 2006 settlement agreement

into which the parties entered. 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:

(1) [An agency official] agrees to expunge Mr. O'Malley's Letter

of Warning dated 1/31/06 for "Failure to meet attendance requirements

of your position" on 5/1/06. The time delay is due to the fact that

[agency management] needs time to further investigate Mr. O'Malley's

FMLA coverage for lateness due to medication prescribed by his doctor.

(2) [An agency official] will let Mr. O'Malley know if any additional

information is needed from his doctor by 5/1/06, on his current approved

FMLA application.

(3) Mr. O'Malley acknowledges that any lateness that is not due to

his FMLA approved leave will be subject to Postal leave regulation and

to be regular in attendance.

According to the FAD, complainant alleged that the agency breached the

settlement agreement in a letter received by the agency on May 13, 2006.

The FAD states that in that letter, complainant contended that the

agency breached the agreement because the agency official named in

the agreement was on vacation on May 1, 2006, leaving the terms of the

agreement unexecuted by that date.

In its June 29, 2006 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach

the agreement because complainant's letter of warning was expunged,

and a management official informed complainant that he must provide

additional information from his physician to obtain FMLA approval.

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 Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

In the instant case, we are unable to ascertain whether the agency

breached the agreement. While the FAD references an interview with

agency officials regarding the agency's compliance with the agreement, the

record does not contain sworn affidavits from these officials addressing

complainant's breach claim or any other persuasive evidence addressing

complainant's breach claim. Therefore, the Commission determines that the

FAD's conclusions are not supported by persuasive independent evidence.

In so finding, we note that although it is ultimately complainant's

burden to prove that a breach has occurred, the Commission has held

that the "agency has the burden of providing evidence and/or proof to

support its final decisions." Ericson v. Department of the Army, EEOC

Request No. 05920623 (January 14, 1993). Given this lack of evidence

in the record, we are unable to ascertain whether the agency breached

the settlement agreement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Commission VACATES the final agency decision and REMANDS

this matter to the agency for further processing in accordance with the

ORDER below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:

The agency shall supplement the record with evidence clearly showing

that it has complied with the terms of the April 14, 2006 settlement

agreement, including affidavits from management addressing complainant's

breach claim. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, the agency shall issue a new decision concerning whether

it breached the April 14, 2006 settlement agreement.

A copy of the agency's new decision must be sent to the Compliance

Officer as referenced herein.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

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 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)

(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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 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 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 (R0900)

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

_March 12, 2008_________________

Date

2

0120064540

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

5

0120064540

6

0120064540