01A01979
09-26-2000
Reginald H. Lewis, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Reginald H. Lewis v. United States Postal Service
01A01979
September 26, 2000
.
Reginald H. Lewis,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01979
Agency No. 1-J-601-0057-99
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 20, 1999, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the July 27, 1999 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Routes will be assigned by seniority (to the best of the supervisor's
ability). Three verbal warnings within a one (1) year period will result
in the supervisor pulling an employee from a route.
By letter to the agency dated August 13, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the
agency implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that the
agency failed to assign him to a route based on seniority.
In its November 20, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it had not
breached the agreement. Specifically, the agency indicated that
complainant was number thirteen on the seniority list out of seventeen
custodians, and that custodians were allowed to choose the route of
their preference
beginning with the most senior. The agency determined that complainant's
choice of route was based on seniority and, therefore, it was in full
compliance with the terms of the July 27, 1999 agreement between the
parties.
The record in this case contains an affidavit prepared by an agency
Maintenance Supervisor, dated October 14, 1999. Therein, the Supervisor
stated that he followed the settlement agreement �to the letter.� The
Supervisor further stated that complainant is number 13 on the seniority
list; that there are thirteen assignable routes; and that unassigned
custodians who were senior to complainant were given the opportunity to
voice their opinions about which unassigned routes that they would prefer.
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).
Upon review, we find that the July 27, 1999 settlement agreement was
not breached. The record indicates, and complainant fails to dispute,
that complainant is number thirteen of seventeen custodians competing for
assignable routes. While complainant alleges that the agency breached
the agreement by failing to assign him a route based on his seniority,
he fails to provide evidence in support of his claim. Without evidence
to substantiate his claim, we find that the complainant has failed to
establish that the agency has breached the agreement between the parties.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding that it was not in breach
of the July 27, 1999 settlement agreement is hereby AFFIRMED for the
reasons set forth herein.
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 (S0400)
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
September 26, 2000
___________________
Date
__________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.