01a01240
08-18-2000
Richard C. Friese, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Richard C. Friese v. United States Postal Service
01A01240
August 18, 2000
.
Richard C. Friese,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01240
Agency No. 1F-927-0044-99
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated October 27, 1999, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the May 13, 1999 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660
(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) Management will investigate their options and try to write a new
job offer by [May 21, 1999] or table it until after [June 21, 1999].
Resolution by [June 30, 1999].
Job offer to state: (1) reasonable accommodation for on the job injury;
(2) primary job function as TTO (Tractor Trailer Operator) driving with
no loading or unloading; (3) computer input at center dock if and only
if eight hours of TTO unavailable.
By letter to the agency dated June 23, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency specifically implement the terms of the agreement.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to make a job
offer in accordance with the terms that were agreed to in the settlement
agreement.
In its October 27, 1999 decision, the agency concluded that it
investigated its options and determined that a new job offer was
not necessary. The agency stated that the original job offer met the
medical requirements as accepted by the Department of Labor and satisfied
complainant's medical limitations.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
A binding settlement agreement requires a contemporaneous meeting of
the minds. Brown v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05940628
(November 3, 1994). The Commission finds that there was no meeting
of the minds when the present settlement agreement was entered into
by the parties. The record indicates that the agency believed when it
entered into the settlement, that it would investigate and only write a
new job offer if the original one did not meet the medical requirements
as accepted by the Department of Labor. The record further indicates that
complainant believed, when he entered into the agreement, that the agency
would definitely write a new job offer by May 21, 1999. The Commission
finds that both parties entered into the settlement agreement, they
understood the phrase "[the agency] will investigate their options and
try to write a new job offer by [May 21, 1999]" to have significantly
different meanings. Because there was no meeting of the minds of the
parties when the agreement was entered into, we find that the May 13,
1999 settlement agreement is not a binding settlement and is void.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no settlement breach is VACATED
and we REMAND the purportedly settled matter to the agency for further
processing in accordance with this decision and applicable regulations.
ORDER
Within thirty days of the date that this decision becomes final, the
agency shall reinstate the settled matter from the point processing
ceased and thereafter process the matter in accordance with the Part
1614 Regulations. Within thirty days of the date that this decision
becomes final, the agency shall notify complaint in writing that it has
reinstated the settled matter and will process the matter in accordance
with EEOC Regulations. A copy of the letter notifying complainant of
the reinstatement of his EEO matter must be submitted to the Compliance
Officer, as referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
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 (R0400)
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
August 18, 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.