01984987
06-29-1999
Roosevelt Peollnitz, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roosevelt Peollnitz v. United States Postal Service
01984987
June 29, 1999
Roosevelt Peollnitz, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01984987
v. ) Agency No. 4-D-230-0212-97
) Hearing No. 120-98-9201X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision finding that it
did not breach the terms of the settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. ��1614.402, .504(b); EEOC Order No. 960,
as amended.
BACKGROUND
A review of the record reveals that appellant filed a formal EEO
complaint on August 7, 1997, alleging that he had been subjected
to unlawful discrimination on the basis of race (African-American).
The agency initially accepted appellant's complaint for processing, and
conducted an investigation. Prior to a hearing being held, appellant
and the agency settled the complaint on March 19, 1998. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The agency agrees to reinstate [appellant] . . . to the Postal Service as
a PTF carrier in the Chesapeake Post Office. An effective date will be
established as soon as he successfully completes all pre-hiring screening
procedures and his OPF is obtained.
By letter to the agency dated May 26, 1998, appellant alleged through
his attorney that the agency breached the settlement agreement.
Appellant asserted that although appellant failed his drug screening,
he should be allowed multiple attempts to satisfy the pre-hearing
screening procedures because the settlement agreement was silent as to
the number of chances or amount of time appellant would have to complete
all pre-hiring screening procedures. Therefore, appellant argued that
the agency's refusal to allow appellant a second drug test, and second
opportunity for employment, violated the settlement agreement.
In its final decision dated May 29, 1998, the agency declined to reinstate
appellant's complaint, finding that it had not breached the settlement
agreement. The agency asserted that appellant was not entitled to
reinstatement as a PTF carrier because he failed the pre-hiring drug
test.
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. In addition, 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 consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between appellant and the agency, and 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).
In the present case, the Commission finds that the relevant terms
of the March 19, 1998 settlement agreement are plain and unambiguous
on their face. The agreement conditioned appellant's reinstatement
on successful completion of the pre-hiring screening procedures, but
appellant was unable to successfully complete the procedures � he failed
a drug test. Appellant has failed to show that providing appellant
with multiple attempts to complete pre-hiring screening procedures was
within the four corners of the agreement or within the contemplation of
the parties. Consequently, the agency's failure to reinstate appellant
or provide appellant with multiple attempts to pass his drug test does
not constitute breach of the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision not to reinstate appellant's complaint
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
June 29, 1999
__________________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations