01983852
12-10-1999
Roy L. Best, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roy L. Best, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01983852
v. ) Agency No. 4H320109396
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely filed an appeal with this Commission from the final
agency decision dated March 27, 1998, in which the agency determined
that it had not breached a settlement agreement entered into on June 25,
1997.<1> The appeal is accepted in accordance with the provisions of
EEOC Order No. 960.001, as amended.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the agency properly determined that it
did not breach the settlement agreement entered into on June 25, 1997.
BACKGROUND
The settlement agreement (SA) provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Complainant] will receive scheme training to begin no later than 30
days from the date of signing this agreement. (paragraph 2).
[Complainant] will receive $900 as reimbursement for expenses incurred
from the filing of the above mentioned complaints. No taxes will be
withheld from this $900. (paragraph 3).
In a letter dated April 10, 1998, complainant alleged that the agency
had breached the SA. Specifically, complainant stated that the agency
did not provide him with the scheme training that was promised by the
SA until seven months after the SA was entered into. Also, the agency
withheld taxes from the $900 reimbursement that complainant received,
despite a promise by the SA not to withhold taxes. Complainant did not
ask for any particular remedy in the April 10, 1998 letter. He did,
however, ask for his "case" to be "reopened" in a November 19, 1997
letter to an Administrative Judge.
In its March 27, 1998 final agency decision (FAD), the agency asserted
that it did not breach the SA. According to the agency, the settlement
had been honored because: (1) complainant was given a current scheme
book within 30 days of the settlement to begin his scheme training and
was later given formal training from February 9, 1998 to March 20,
1998; and (2) complainant was notified, at the receipt of the $900,
that any tax liability from the payment was his responsibility and that
the I.R.S. makes the determination about whether any taxes must be paid.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be
binding on both parties. That section further provides that if the
complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with the terms
of a settlement agreement, the complainant shall notify the Director
of Equal Employment Opportunity of the alleged noncompliance with the
settlement agreement within 30 days of when the complainant knew or
should have known of the alleged noncompliance. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement agreement
be specifically implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated
for further processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
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, 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 re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there
is a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent
of the parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule.
Wong v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (April 29, 1994)
(citing Hyon O v. U.S. 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, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
In the instance case, we find that the agency breached the SA with
respect to paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 promised that complainant would
receive scheme training to begin no later than 30 days from the date
of signing the SA. The agency did not comply with this paragraph.
Complainant's scheme training did not begin within 30 days of the signing
of the SA. Complainant was only given a current scheme training book
within that time period. Seven months passed until he was given formal
training. It appears to us that the scheme training book was not enough
to constitute the commencement of training since a more formal training
program was in place. If the training had, in fact, begun there would not
have been a six month gap between when the book was given to complainant
and when he actually received formal training. In his April 10, 1998
letter, complainant verified that he did not receive formal scheme
training until seven months after the SA was signed. Since we have found
that the agency breached the agreement with respect to paragraph 2, there
is no need for us to address the agency's potential breach of paragraph 3.
CONCLUSION
Based on the record in this case, we find that the agency's decision
was improper and is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the agency to
reinstate complainant's complaint for further processing in accordance
with the following ORDER.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to process complainant's complaint from the point
where processing ceased. The agency shall acknowledge to complainant
that it has received the complaint within thirty (30) calendar days of
the date this decision becomes final.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
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 (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)
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:
__12-10-99____________ ______________________________
Date Carlton Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
__________________________
1 On 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.