01a02803
07-28-2000
Luke F. Riley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Luke F. Riley v. United States Postal Service
01A02803
July 28, 2000
.
Luke F. Riley,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02803
Agency No. 1A-072-0027-98
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 8, 2000, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 11, 1999 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660
(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will not be responsible to repay the
U.S.P.S. $4,343.47.
(2) [Complainant] agrees to withdraw with prejudice his petition for a
Debt Collection Act hearing (P.S. Docket No. DCA99-83).
(3) [Complainant] agrees to withdraw with prejudice his EEO complaint
(1A-072-0027-98) relative to this issue.
(4) [Complainant] agrees that this settlement agreement is settlement
of all issues germane to his Indebtedness to the U.S.P.S. in the amount
of $4,343.47.
By letter to the agency dated October 4, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that he has continued to receive past due invoices indicating
that he has failed to pay a debt owed. Complainant further alleged that
he had not received any correspondence indicating that he was no longer
indebted to the agency in the amount of $4,343.47. Complainant also
claimed that the agency breached the May 11, 1999 agreement by failing
to pursue the salary issue of another employee.
In its February 8, 2000 FAD, the agency concluded that it has complied
with the terms of the agreement between the parties. Specifically, the
agency states in its FAD that the agency finance office has indicated
that an Indebtedness Code no longer exists for complainant's account, and
that complainant's payroll journal would reflect that same information.
Moreover, the FAD indicated that the May 11, 1999 agreement between the
parties had no provision regarding the salary issue of any other employee.
In that regard, the agency determined that it had complied with the
provisions of the settlement agreement.
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 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, complainant claims that the agency breached
that portion of the agreement stipulating that he would no longer be
responsible to the agency in the amount of $4,343.47. In support of
his claim of breach, complainant indicates that he has continued to
receive past due invoices for monies owed by him to the postal service.
In response to complainant's breach claim, the FAD indicates simply
that an �Indebtedness Code� no longer exists for complainant regarding
the $4,343.47. The FAD also asserts that there was no provision in the
May 11, 1999 settlement agreement with respect to the salary issue of
another employee. Upon review, the Commission determines that the has
not breached any portion of the agreement regarding the salary issue
of any employee. A review of the May 11, 1999 agreement reveals that
there is no such stipulation. As the agency stated in its final
decision, this matter was not included in the settlement agreement,
and complainant should have made sure that the issue was expressly
included in the settlement agreement in order to bind the agency under
the terms thereof.
However, with respect to the issue of complainant's indebtedness to the
postal service, the Commission is unable to determine from the record,
whether the agency complied with the terms of the settlement agreement
in that regard. The agency has failed to provide any evidence or to
support its contention that it has complied with the provisions of
the settlement agreement. Without sufficient evidence to support its
finding, the agency's decision must be vacated. Therefore, the Commission
shall remand the matter so that the agency may supplement the record
with appropriate documentation indicating that complainant's debt has
been relieved. Accordingly the decision of the agency is VACATED and
REMANDED in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to conduct an investigation to supplement the record
with appropriate documentation indicating that complainant is no longer
in debt to the postal service in the amount of $4,343.47, and any other
documents regarding complainant's indebtedness to the agency. Thereafter,
the agency shall determine whether to process or dismiss the remanded
claims. 29 C.F.R. �1614.106 et seq. If the agency decides to dismiss
the claims, it shall issue a new final agency decision. The supplemental
investigation, issuance of a notice of processing and/or new final
decision must be completed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date
this decision becomes final.
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)
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:
July 28, 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.