01A42075_r
07-29-2004
Mitzi M. Crenshaw, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mitzi M. Crenshaw v. United States Postal Service
01A42075
July 29, 2004
.
Mitzi M. Crenshaw,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42075
Agency No. 4F-907-0139-03
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated January 9, 2004, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a May 8, 2003 settlement agreement. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The May 8, 2003 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
..........
2. [Injury Compensation Specialist] agrees to do a district search for
accommodations within medical restrictions and will begin this search
by or on June 1, 2003. This entails [Injury Compensation Specialist]
generates a letter to the field giving the postmasters [Complainant's]
limitations and work restrictions. [Injury Compensation Specialist]
will request responses be submitted within 30 days. [Injury Compensation
Specialist] and [Complainant's representative] will communicate in the
next 90 days as to district findings.
3. If there is a positive response from a post master in the district
an interview will be set up for [complainant]
4. In the event [complainant] is interviewed, the results of that
interview will be communicated to [Injury Compensation Specialist].
5. [Complainant] will send copies of the itemized bill for her MRI to
[Injury Compensation Specialist] and to the Claims Examiner at the
Dept. of Labor.
By letter to the agency dated August 15, 2003, complainant alleged without
elaboration that the agency breached the May 8, 2003 settlement agreement.
In its January 9, 2004 final decision, the agency found no breach.
Regarding provision 2, the agency determined that the Injury Compensation
Specialist conducted a job search for complainant throughout the
district with no positive results; and that the result of the findings
were provided to complainant's representative. Regarding provision 5,
the agency found that according to the Injury Compensation Specialist,
complainant had not yet submitted an itemized bill for the MRI to be
submitted to the Claims Examiner at the Department of Labor.
On appeal, complainant contends that the Injury Compensation Specialist
�who was a signatory to the settlement agreement, is to my knowledge,
not an authorized representative and lacks the authority to bind the
agency, to look for a job beyond the Los Angeles district.�
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, the Commission determines that complainant failed
to show breach of the May 13, 2003 settlement agreement. The record
in evidence contains a copy of the Injury Compensation Specialist's
Memorandum dated March 12, 2003, to Manager Post Office Operations,
Postmasters and Station Managers concerning an alternative job
position for complainant; and copies of the negative responses from the
postmasters. The record also contains a copy of the Injury Compensation
Specialist's letter dated June 10, 2003, to complainant's representative
with attached copies of the negative responses from the postmasters.
Therein, the Injury Compensation Specialist stated that she would notify
the representative the following week if any additional responses are
returned ; and that complainant had not submitted an itemized bill per
provision 5 of the agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no breach of the May 8,
2003 settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
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
July 29, 2004
__________________
Date