Ricardo Chin, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 13, 2000
01991261 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 13, 2000)

01991261

12-13-2000

Ricardo Chin, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Ricardo Chin v. United States Postal Service

01991261

December 13, 2000

.

Ricardo Chin,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01991261

Agency No. 4-F-900-0114-98

DECISION

On June 25, 1998, complainant and the agency entered into a agreement to

settle complainant's EEO complaint. Subsequently, complainant alleged

breach of the settlement agreement. In a decision dated October 15,

1998, the agency found no breach of the agreement. Complainant timely

appealed the agency's decision to this Commission.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

[The Station Manager] agree[s] to initiate the process to reimburse

[complainant] with sick leave for the period of December 31, 1997 through

January 4, 1998. Said period includes holiday pay and [complainant]

will be compensated accordingly. Should [complainant] not receive sick

leave payment for the period of December 31, 1997 through January 4,

1998, within three (3) pay periods from the date of the agreement,

[the Station Manager] agrees to intervene to expedite the matter.

By letter to the agency dated September 14, 1998, complainant alleged

that the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically,

complainant noted that he had not yet received reimbursement for sick

leave as contemplated in the agreement.

In its October 15, 1998 decision, the agency concluded that no breach

occurred. It found that the manager intervened to expedite the

process, and that, albeit belatedly, accounting processed the sick

leave reimbursement. On appeal, complainant argues that the agency

relied solely on management's assertions. He claims to have received

no sick leave reimbursement to date. Complainant also contends that

there is no evidence that the sick leave was processed.

The record includes a letter dated August 28, 1998, from the Station

Manager to the agency's accounting office. In this letter, the manager

asked that the office investigate whether complainant received his

adjustment. The manager attached a copy of the requested adjustment to

the letter.

The record also contains a letter dated October 9, 1998 from a

Labor Relations Specialist, noting that the manager became involved

when complainant had not received his sick leave within three pay

periods as contemplated by the agreement. The letter also indicated

that the specialist �met with [an individual from the] General

Accounting Office. [Their] meeting resulted in the [the] processing of

[complainant's] requested sick leave, on this same day.� The record

did not contain a letter from the General Accounting Office, nor a

check or pay stub indicating that complainant received the sick leave

reimbursement.

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.

A settlement agreement constitutes a contract between the employee and

the agency, and ordinary rules of contract construction apply. See

Herrington v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05960032

(Dec. 9, 1996). The parties' intent as expressed in the contract,

not some unexpressed intention, 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 generally relies

on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule provides

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 cannot determine whether the agreement

was breached. The record indicates that complainant's supervisor became

involved when complainant did not receive his compensation within three

pay periods. But the agency's responsibility does not end there -- the

agreement also provides for complainant to be compensated for his sick

leave and holiday pay. Complainant contends that he has not yet received

the compensation outlined in the agreement. Although the agency argues

otherwise, the record contains no evidence to indicate that complainant

received his sick leave and holiday pay. Without evidence of whether

complainant was reimbursed, the Commission cannot agree with the agency's

findings.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision is VACATED, and the claim is REMANDED

for a supplemental investigation as provided below.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to perform the following:

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, obtain any pay stub, check (copy), receipt, or other information

to document whether complainant received the payment contemplated in

the agreement. The agency also must obtain information to show how the

payment was calculated.

Within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, issue a new decision based on its findings in the supplemental

investigation. If the evidence shows that complainant has not received

the reimbursement contemplated in the settlement agreement, then the

agency must find that it breached the agreement.

The agency shall send a copy of its new decision to complainant, and to

the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right

to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order

prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29

C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying

complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File

A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action

for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject

to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the

complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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

(R0900)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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

December 13, 2000

__________________

Date