01a41745
02-11-2005
Ricky Muzny, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ricky Muzny v. United States Postal Service
01A41745
February 11, 2005
.
Ricky Muzny,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A41745
Agency No. 4G-730-0114-99
DECISION
n
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated January 18, 2004, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 20, 1999 settlement agreement.
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:
�Ricky will not be questioned on his 3996 when he puts down that he is
ill except when medical conditions may impair work safety.�<1>
By letter to the agency dated December 7, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that on December 5, 2003 he was delivering his mail route and
became ill and fatigued. He stated that he called the office, spoke
to the supervisor of clerks (S1) and informed her that he felt ill.
He stated to S1 that he wanted his supervisor to �adjust my PS 3996
accordingly.� Complainant claims that another postal carrier was sent
to assist him on his route and informed him that he would have to take
an hour of sick leave for the hour of help he provided. This he asserts,
violated the terms of his settlement agreement.
In its January 18, 2004 decision, the agency concluded that complainant's
form 3996 only states �new on route� and contains no entry that
complainant was ill at the time. The agency determined that complainant
did not establish that he asked his form 3996 to be modified to reflect
his illness. He also did not establish that any supervisor questioned
his illness or his request for assistance on his route, therefore,
the agency concluded that it did not breach the settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 the intent of the parties as
expressed in the contract, and 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
O 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).
In the instant case, complainant has not established that a breach
occurred. That is, he alleged in essence, that he was questioned about
his form 3996 request for assistance or overtime. There is no evidence
that complainant was questioned about his need for overtime or for
assistance on his route. In fact, on receiving complainant's call, the
agency sent another carrier to assist him on his route. Complainant seems
to indicate that requiring him to take sick leave for the remainder of the
time left on his route was a violation of the agreement. However, he did
not submit any evidence that he took sick leave or was required to do so.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the agency did not breach 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
February 11, 2005
__________________
Date
1The agency's form 3996 is a request for
auxiliary assistance or overtime when a route carrier is unable to
complete the route in the time allotted.