01993593
02-26-2001
Rhons G. Williford, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rhons G. Williford,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal
Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993593
Agency No. 4F-920-0014-98
DECISION
On March 25, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated March 2,
1999, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the January 16,
1998 settlement agreement into which the parties entered. The Commission
accepts the appeal. See EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.<1>
The settlement agreement dated February 16, 1998, was in resolution of an
EEO complaint identified by agency number 4F-920-0014-98. The agreement
provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant] will be paid 24 hours for pay period 14;
(2) [Complainant] will be paid up to 39.60 hours for the remaining
18 weeks;
(3) The total settlement hours are 232.93 hours to be paid at a straight
time rate.
The record reflects that by letter to the agency dated September 22, 1998,
complainant requested EEO counseling on a variety of alleged incidents
of discrimination. One of the matters addressed by complainant was
identified in the following fashion:
The complainant believes and alleges that he is still owed 40
(forty) hours of back pay as per EEO settlement [USPS EEO Case #:
4F-920-0014-98].
By letter dated November 2, 1998, the agency informed complainant that
the claim of settlement breach, identified in the letter of September 22,
1998, would not be processed as a counseling request but instead as a
breach of the settlement agreement.<2>
In its March 2, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it had erroneously
omitted 44.62 hours of back pay from complainant's award under the
settlement agreement, and stated that it was expediting payment to
complainant. Complainant makes no statement on appeal. In its response,
the agency states that it tendered a check to complainant for 44.62
hours at a �straight pay� rate pursuant to the settlement agreement.
A copy of the check, dated February 19, 1999, and a statement of payment
is included in the record.
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).
The record demonstrates that the agency paid the complainant the
outstanding 44.62 hour balance of the back pay award at issue, thereby
addressing the breach alleged by complainant. To the extent that there
was a breach, we find that the agency has effectively cured the violation.
Accordingly, we find that the agency is in compliance with the settlement
agreement, and it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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:
February 26, 2001
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
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.
2 The other matters for which complainant underwent EEO counseling,
as reflected in his letter of September 22, 1998, were processed under
agency Complaint Number 4F-920-0002-99, and are not at issue in the
instant appeal.