04A10013
03-15-2001
Samuel Joyner, Petitioner, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.
Samuel Joyner v. United States Postal Service
04A10013
March 15, 2001
.
Samuel Joyner,
Petitioner,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area)
Agency.
Petition No. 04A10013
Appeal No. 01993587
Agency No. 4H320104695
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
On November 29, 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) docketed a petition for clarification to examine the order set
forth in Samuel Joyner v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No.
01993587 (May 17, 2000). This petition for clarification is accepted
by the Commission pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503.
Petitioner filed a complaint in which he alleged that the agency breached
a February 25, 1999 settlement agreement. Petitioner appealed the
agency's final decision dismissing his complaint to the Commission.
In EEOC Appeal No. 01993587, the Commission reviewed the settlement
agreement and determined that petitioner failed to establish breach
of the settlement because there was insufficient information on appeal
to establish that the agency violated the agreement. Nevertheless, we
remanded the complaint to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement.
The matter was then assigned to a compliance officer and docketed as
Compliance No. 06A01179. On October 30, 2000, petitioner submitted the
petition for clarification at issue.
We take this opportunity to clarify our decision. Petitioner wants
to know why our prior Order contemplates a new medical evaluation.
Under petitioner's view, a new medical evaluation could aid the Commission
in determining whether there was a breach of the settlement agreement.
On the other hand, he states that the agency has suggested that any new
medical evaluation is to be used to implement the settlement agreement.
While we found that petitioner failed to establish breach, we ordered the
agency to perform its obligations under the agreement. We concluded that
the settlement agreement vested an independent medical expert, relying
on the functional requirements of the PTF Distribution Clerk position,
to determine petitioner's fitness for duty. The agreement specifically
contemplates a position in the Jacksonville area.
Neither party suggests that petitioner has established breach of
the settlement agreement and we note that petitioner did not request
reconsideration of our previous decision. It appears that petitioner
does not desire specific enforcement of the settlement agreement, but
prefers reinstatement of his complaint and/or an award of damages even
though he has failed to establish breach of the settlement agreement.
With respect to an award of damages, we take this opportunity to advise
petitioner that even if he establishes that the agency breached the
settlement agreement, the only remedies available for such breach are
specific performance of the agreement or reinstatement of petitioner's
underlying complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). Thus, unless petitioner
establishes a breach, elects to reinstate his underlying complaint
and prevails on the underlying complaint, he cannot be awarded the
compensatory damages he appears to be seeking.
CONCLUSION
Based upon a review of the record, we find no reason to disturb our ORDER
in EEOC Appeal No. 01993587 (May 17, 2000). We restate our ORDER below
which remains in effect to the extent that the parties have not already
complied with its provisions.
ORDER
Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall permit the complainant to supplement the record with
additional medical findings from the mutually agreed upon medical expert
regarding his medical suitability for the PTF Distribution Clerk position.
The supplemental findings may be produced after a new medical examination.
The additional medical findings shall include the expert's conclusions
on whether complainant meets the functional requirements of the position
as provided in the Medical Examination and Assessment form.
If the mutually agreed upon medical expert is not available, the agency
shall cooperate with the complainant by selecting a new expert under
the procedure outlined in paragraph 1 of the settlement agreement.
Once the sixty (60) days has expired, the agency shall either respond
to complainant in writing, within (15) calendar days, specifically
implementing the settlement agreement, or issue a new FAD. A copy of
the new FAD and/or notice of processing must be sent to the Compliance
Officer as referenced below.
PETITIONER'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
March 15, 2001
Date