01A24904_r
03-18-2003
Louis Blanc, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Louis Blanc v. United States Postal Service
01A24904
March 18, 2003
.
Louis Blanc,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24904
Agency No. 1C-443-0062-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated July 12, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a July 20, 2000 settlement agreement.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
The July 20, 2000 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Supervisor] is not to work, or be present, in the Canton OH Plant,
Main Post Office, at 2650 Cleveland Ave. N.W., while [Complainant]
is employed there.<1>
On May 25, 2002, complainant alleged that the agency breached the
settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant alleged that on May 16,
2002, in the parking lot before his work shift, he thought he saw the
Supervisor named in the settlement agreement at his work site, and
that he was later informed that the Supervisor indeed had been on the
workfloor talking to people, in violation of the settlement agreement.
In its July 12, 2002 final decision, the agency found no breach. The
agency noted that the Supervisor was not in the building on his own
initiative, but that he had been advised to report briefly to the building
to provide necessary litigation information. The agency further stated
that immediately following his mandatory participation, the Supervisor
left the premises.
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).
A review of the record persuades the Commission that the agency breached
the settlement agreement dated July 20, 2000. Regarding the agreement,
the agency stated that there was no evidence that the Supervisor was
actually even present on the work floor at the same time that complainant
was present. The agency further stated that by his acknowledgment,
complainant did not see the Supervisor but was merely told about the
Supervisor's presence. The Commission determines, however, that the
terms of the settlement agreement expressly provide for the Supervisor
not to work, or be present in the Canton, Ohio Plant, Main Post Office
while complainant is employed there. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the agency breached the settlement agreement.
In findings of breach, the Commission may order the agency to reinstate
the underlying complaint, or to enforce the terms of the agreement.
The Commission finds that enforcement of the settlement agreement, given
the specific circumstances of this case, is the more appropriate remedy.
In addition, the Commission notes complainant's assertions on appeal
that he has been subjected to ongoing harassment after the execution
of the July 20, 2000 agreement. If complainant wishes to pursue these
matters further, he is advised to contact an EEO Counselor, if he has
not yet done so.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement
agreement is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the agency to take
appropriate actions in accordance with the Order set forth herein.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency is ORDERED to under the following action:
The agency shall implement the settlement agreement by assuring that the
Supervisor named in the settlement agreement will not work, or be present,
in the Canton OH Plant, Main Post Office, at 2650 Cleveland Ave. N.W.,
while complainant is employed there.
The agency shall notify complainant that the subject settlement agreement
is being implemented. A copy of the agency's notice to complainant must
be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
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 18, 2003
__________________
Date
1The settlement agreement also provided
for the restoration of up to fifty hours of sick leave. This provision
is not at issue in the instant appeal.