Paul H. McRae, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 11, 2004
01A30559_ (E.E.O.C. Feb. 11, 2004)

01A30559_

02-11-2004

Paul H. McRae, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Paul H. McRae v. United States Postal Service

01A30559

02-11-04

.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

Paul H. McRae,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A30559

Agency No. 4C-080-0015-00; 4C-080-0016-00;

4C-080-0026-00; 4C-080-0049-00; 4C-080-021-00

DECISION

BACKGROUND

By letter to the agency dated October 24, 2002, complainant claimed that

the agency was in breach of a September 18, 2001, settlement agreement by

failing to place him in the Pennsgrove postmaster position. Complainant

requested that the agency specifically enforce the terms of the agreement

and place him in the postmaster position. On that same date, complainant

filed a petition with this Commission, requesting that it determine

whether the agency breached the terms of the agreement. Although

complainant filed prematurely, the Commission accepts complainant's

petition. On November 5, 2002, the agency issued its final decision,

concluding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement

agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504.

In its November 5, 2002, final decision, the agency concluded that

the parties' settlement agreement did not reflect an intent to place

complainant in the postmaster position. Furthermore, the agency

concluded that because the position was eventually filled by an employee

who was granted the position as a lateral assignment consistent with the

agency's policy regarding noncompetitive selection, complainant had no

right to be considered through the competitive selection process.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The settlement agreement provided in pertinent part:

�Complainant and all candidates for the Pennsgrove Postmaster position

will be interviewed and complainant will be given favorable consideration

for the vacancy;�

The agency's �Employee and Labor Relations Manual� mandated that

when a vacancy occurred, management should fill the vacancy through

noncompetitive application procedures before filling the position through

competitive procedures.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement

agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be

binding on both parties. The Commission has held that the parties' intent

as expressed in the agreement controls the agreement'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, 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 find that the settlement agreement instructs the

agency how to act with regard to complainant in the regular operation

of the agency's selection procedure and does not mandate his automatic

placement into the postmaster position. The agency's selection procedure

indicates that applicants requesting placement through the competitive

process should only be considered after those employees requesting

selection through the noncompetitive process. Therefore, the Commission

finds that the agency did not breach the parties' agreement by filling

the postmaster vacancy through a noncompetitive lateral transfer.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and 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 tends 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

__02-11-04________

Date