01994073
07-06-2000
Wilfredo D. Trejo, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Wilfredo D. Trejo, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01994073
) Agency No. 4-J-606-0049-98
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds that the final agency decision, which rejected
Complainant's breach of settlement claim, was proper pursuant to the
provisions 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and
hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.504).<1>
The record shows that on December 7, 1998, Complainant and the agency
reached a settlement agreement. The agreement provided in pertinent
part that
� it is understood and agreed that Complainant will be reinstated with
the Postal Service effective December 12, 1998. The Complainant will
finish out his original probationary ninety (90) day term which expires
December 26, 1998".
By letter dated December 28, 1998, Complainant's attorney claimed breach
of the settlement agreement. Complainant's attorney claimed that
even though during �the December 1, 1998 pre-hearing ... [the agency
representative] represented that Complainant would be assigned to the
Cragin Station and would not be returned to the Graceland Station�, when
he reported to work on December 12, 1998, �he was ordered to report to
the Graceland Station as of December 14, 1998". The attorney further
alleged that Complainant �agreed to settle his complaint and forego his
claims ... in part on [the agency's representative's] representation that
Complainant would not be assigned to the Graceland Station�. Finally,
Complainant's attorney argued that after Complainant worked through
December 26, 1998, the agency failed to pay Complainant the �54.23 hours
he worked during that pay period�. The attorney also advised the agency
that after December 28, 1998, Complainant would not report for work.
The agency issued a final decision rejecting the settlement breach claim.
The agency also found that �Greenleaf processed a pay adjustment for the
Complainant, however, since he failed to report for duty, the adjustment
form wasn't signed�.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be
binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency
has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the
complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance
"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.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency
and 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
(Aug. 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. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing
Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 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)).
The plain language of the agreement required the agency to reinstate
Complainant. However, no provision was made concerning the station
to which Complainant would be assigned. A review of the record shows
that while Complainant and his attorney have stated that the agency
representative informed them that Complainant would be assigned to
the Cragin station, such a matter was not made part of the terms of
the settlement agreement. To the extent that complainant interpreted
the provisions of the settlement agreement as requiring that agency
officials expressly reinstate complainant to a specific agency facility,
such interpretation should have been reduced to writing as part of the
settlement agreement. Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01951903 (March 4, 1987).
Finally, the Commission that that complainant contends that the agency
failed to pay him on December 23, 1998, for the 54.23 hours he allegedly
worked in that pay period. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c)
states that �[a]llegations that subsequent acts of discrimination
violate a settlement agreement shall be processed as separate complaints
of discrimination� and not as a breach of the settlement agreement.
The Commission finds that complainant's claim regarding the failure to
be paid for the December 23, 1998 pay period constitutes a new claim of
discrimination that must be processed as a separate complaint.
Accordingly, the settlement agreement was not breached by the agency.
The final agency decision was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
July 6, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.