01A10973_r
04-16-2001
Tracy Wooten-Ratliff, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tracy Wooten-Ratliff v. United States Postal Service
01A10973
April 16, 2001
.
Tracy Wooten-Ratliff,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10973
Agency No. 4C-450-0107-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a decision
by the agency dated October 25, 2000, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the March 22, 2000 settlement agreement into which
the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
It is agreed by the parties [complainant] will be treated as any
other employee in the [agency]. It is further agreed [complainant]
will be assigned to routes and job duties as any other PTF within the
[agency]. [Complainant] will be afforded overtime hours as any other
PTF given consideration to job restrictions and operational feasibility.
It is agreed that management of the [agency] will make every reasonable
effort to schedule in station PTF's prior to scheduling other PTF's from
outside stations or branches.
By letter to the agency dated May 31, 2000, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement.
In its October 25, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that complainant
did not provide any evidence to support her allegation that management
failed to comply with the terms of the settlement.
On appeal, complainant alleges that the agreement was breached when
the agency scheduled outside PTF's prior to scheduling complainant.
Complainant states that on June 23, August 30, August 31, and September 1,
2000, management employed outside help prior to using complainant.
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 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, we find that complainant has failed to substantiate
her claim that the agency breached the settlement agreement. At the time
of her breach allegation, complainant failed to identify any evidence
to support her allegation. In her May 31, 2000 letter alleging breach,
complainant failed to identify any specific dates or events that she
perceived to constitute a breach of the agreement. The agency properly
issued its final decision on October 25, 2000, concluding that complainant
failed to provide evidence to support her allegation of non-compliance.
In addition, we note that on appeal complainant still does not identify
any incidents which occurred prior to May 31, 2000, which she perceived
to constitute a breach of the agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision that it did not breach the agreement
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
April 16, 2001
__________________
Date