01A30331_r
08-07-2003
Ronnell E. Smith, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ronnell E. Smith v. United States Postal Service
01A30331
August 7, 2003
.
Ronnell E. Smith,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30331
Agency No. 4E-590-0032-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated September 4, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the May 22, 2001 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Without bias or prejudice and to [management's] best ability,
[management] will provide all aspects of 204B training to [complainant].
(2) [Management] and [complainant] both will keep their communication
with the other positive, respectful, and professional, to the best of
their ability;
(3) [Management] will train and use [complainant] in the 204B program
as fairly and equally as possible.
(4) [Complainant] will be more explicit in asking [management] for
direction for [complainant's] advancement in the 204B program.
Automation preparation training (as available on our tour II) will be
provided by [management] to [complainant].
Hourly budget training will be provided by [management] to [complainant].
By letter to the agency dated August 5, 2001, complainant alleged that the
agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the
settled matter be reinstated at the point processing previously ceased.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to assign 204B
duties to him and failed to provide training as agreed.
In its September 4, 2002 decision, the agency determined that no breach
of the settlement agreement occurred. The agency found that from May 22,
2001 until March 5, 2002, when complainant resigned from the 204-B program
for financial and family considerations, 68 opportunities arose for 204-B
duties on Tour II, to which complainant was assigned on 24 occasions.
Two other employees were assigned to the remaining opportunities, with one
serving on 21 occasions, the other on 23 occasions. The agency further
found that complainant withdrew from the 204-B program before he had
an opportunity to take "TACS" training. However, the agency concluded
that complainant's supervisor was still willing to offer complainant the
opportunity to take this training. Therefore, the agency found it had
complied with the settlement agreement of May 22, 2001.
On appeal, complainant argues that four other identified individuals
have performed 204-B duties on Tour II, for which he was available.
Complainant submits the time and attendance records pertaining to one
individual and states that the agency has not released the additional
records that would prove his breach allegations that the 204-B
opportunities have not been fairly assigned.
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 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, we find the record supports the agency's
determination that it has complied with the settlement agreement.
The record confirms that complainant received training and the opportunity
to serve as a 204-B supervisor as agreed, during the time he was able
to serve. We find complainant failed to show the agency breached the
settlement agreement.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's determination that no breach of the
settlement agreement occurred.
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
August 7, 2003
__________________
Date