01A14643_r
09-11-2002
Rhonda A. Mayfield, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rhonda A. Mayfield v. United States Postal Service
01A14643
September 11, 2002
.
Rhonda A. Mayfield,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A14643
Agency No. 4-I-630-0122-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated July 10, 2001, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a June 7, 2001 settlement agreement. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The June 7, 2001 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) A selection will be made from vacancy announcement 00.073 of the
applicants that �best meets� the position description within 30 days; and
Selection will come from the applicants previously recommended by the
review committee.
On July 9, 2001, complainant alleged that the agency breached the
settlement agreement, and requested that the agency reinstate her
underlying complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency
failed to select an applicant for vacancy announcement 00.073 within
thirty days after the execution of the agreement, because the selection
was not effective until July 28, 2001.<1>
In its final decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach
the agreement. The agency found that it made its selection for the
vacancy announcement 00.073 on July 5, 2001, which was finally approved
by District Management on July 9, 2001, satisfying its obligation under
the agreement.
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. 0 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).
The Commission notes that while the instant settlement agreement specifies
a time frame for compliance, we have held that the failure to satisfy a
time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent a finding
of substantial compliance of its terms, especially when all required
actions were subsequently completed. Lazarte v. Department of the
Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (April 25, 1996). The record reveals
that in a letter dated July 16, 2001, the agency notified complainant of
her selection to the position of Labor Relations Specialist, EAS-17,
Vacancy Announcement 00.073, effective July 28, 2001. On appeal,
complainant argues that the agency breached the settlement agreement
because the effective date of her selection is beyond the promised
thirty-day period. However, the Commission determines that the agency
substantially complied with the terms of the agreement when a selection
was made on July 5, 2001, and was officially approved on July 9, 2001.
Moreover, the settlement agreement does not indicate that the effective
date of the selection would occur within thirty days of the execution
of the settlement agreement. We AFFIRM the agency's finding that it
has not breached the 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
September 11, 2002
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
_______________________
1We note that on appeal, complainant makes reference to another complaint
filed July 23, 2001 (Agency No. 4-I-630-0141-01). The record indicates
that the agency is currently processing this complaint and has not issued
a final decision or granted appeal rights for this matter. Consequently,
complainant's appeal of this matter is premature. When the agency has
taken final action on that complaint, the agency will provide appeal
rights to the Commission, and at that time, complainant may file a new
appeal with the Commission.