01a40665
04-12-2004
Mitchell Harris, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mitchell Harris v. United States Postal Service
01A40665
April 12, 2004
.
Mitchell Harris,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A40665
Agency No. 1l-531-0049-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the final
decision by the agency dated October 31, 2003, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a September 25, 2002 settlement agreement.
The record shows that complainant was issued a mule license suspension in
November 2000, and subsequently filed an EEO complaint. The complaint
was accepted, investigated and scheduled for a hearing. However, on
September 25, 2002, complainant and the agency executed the instant
settlement agreement which stated that complainant would withdraw his
EEO complaint, providing, in pertinent part, that:
Any documents associated with the complainant's mule license suspension
from November of 2000, will be expunged from complainant's Official
Personnel Files (OPF).
The records reflect that on May 5, 2003, the agency issued a suspension of
complainant's Powered Equipment Privileges on the grounds that complainant
was engaged in a third PIT accident.
By letter dated May 8, 2003, complainant alleged that the agency breached
provision (5) of the settlement agreement. Complainant stated that
although all the records related to his November 2000 mule license
suspension were to be expunged from all agency files, the agency
improperly considered the November 2000 incident as a factor in its
issuance of the suspension on May 5, 2003.<1> Complainant also argues
that the settlement agreement was not entered in good faith because
�there should be one accident, because the [agency] should have expunged
my file per settlement agreement.�
In its final decision dated October 31, 2003, the agency found that it had
not breached the September 25, 2002 settlement agreement. In an affidavit
dated August 16, 2003, an agency Labor Relation Specialist stated that
the agency satisfied the settlement agreement when the November 2000
suspension of the mule license was removed from complainant's Official
Personnel Folder (OPF). Specifically, the officer stated that: �the
suspension of the mule license was removed from the OPF. The intent of
the settlement was not to absolve [complainant] of the accident(s) nor
any records contained in the Safety Office or any other office that the
accident occurred. Only the suspension notice/record was to be removed.�
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 interpreting settlement agreements, the Commission has applied
the contract principle known as the �plain meaning rule�, which holds
that where a 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 Smith v. Defense
Logistic Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 01913570 (December 2, 1991); Hyon
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2,
1991); Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377
(5th Cir. 1984).
The Commission determines that complainant has not shown that the agency
breached the settlement agreement. The record shows, and complainant
does not dispute, that his OPF file has been purged of adverse
material associated with his November 2000 mule license suspension.
Complainant's contention, however, concerns other agency records which
contain information related to his November 2000 mule license suspension.
However, the settlement agreement referred only to purging the OPF file.
The agency's failure to purge other records not found in the OPF does not
constituted a breach of the settlement agreement. To the extent that
complainant intended to included the purging of such other files, this
expectation should have been specifically included in the settlement
agreement. Moreover, we do not find any persuasive evidence that the
agency has failed in its obligation to exercise good faith in honoring
the terms stated herein.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no breach of the September
25, 2002 settlement agreement.
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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 12, 2004
__________________
Date
1The May 5, 2003 suspension letter does not
make specific reference to the incident that resulted in complainant's
mule license suspension in November 2000; however, the suspension letter
indicates that the incident that triggered the May 2003 suspension (in
April 2003), was the �3rd offense of this nature and corrective action
is needed.�