01A06032_r
08-15-2002
Ernestine Crutcher, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ernestine Crutcher v. United States Postal Service
01A06032
August 15, 2002
.
Ernestine Crutcher,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A06032
Agency No. 1-H-351-0048-00
DECISION
The agency issued a final decision finding no breach of a May 31, 2000
settlement agreement, and complainant timely appealed. The settlement
agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[The agency] agree[s] to cooperate in a full-scale investigation that
will be conducted concerning this matter, to be conducted by the EEOC
office. Further, until the investigation has been conducted (not to
exceed three weeks), management agrees that [the responsible management
official] will be placed back in his craft and not be allowed to be in
a supervisory capacity.
The agency contends that its EEO office conducted a full investigation on
June 5 and 6, 2000, and placed the responsible management official in a
non-supervisory position during the investigation. The investigation
found insufficient evidence of sexual harassment, and declined to
discipline the responsible management official. The agency finds that
it performed its obligations under the agreement, and complainant's
dissatisfaction with its outcome does not constitute breach.
On appeal, complainant argues that the terms of the agreement require a
full investigation by the EEOC, not the agency's EEO office. Further,
complainant asserts that the investigation did not interview all of the
relevant witnesses.
Any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, is binding on both
parties. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). 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 parties' intent as
expressed in the contract, not some unexpressed intention, 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 generally has 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).
Ordinarily, the plain meaning of �EEOC� is the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, not the agency's EEO office. The phrase �the
EEOC office,� in the context of a settlement agreement between the agency
and complainant is less clear. In fact, the parties came to opposite
conclusions regarding the meaning of the term. Since the Commission was
not involved in settlement negotiations, nor a party to the settlement
agreement, to find that �the EEOC office� referred to the Commission
would render the provision unenforceable � the parties cannot bind the
Commission to perform the investigation.
When interpreting express terms in a contract, �an interpretation which
gives a reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms
is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part unreasonable,
unlawful, or of no effect.� Restatement (Second) of Contracts � 203(a)
(1981); see 1 Corbin on Contracts � 4.1 Rev. Ed. (Joseph M. Perillo, ed.,
West, (1993)(1963)) (fn. 4: �A contract will be given that construction
which will make it valid and binding instead of a construction which
would make it void or unenforceable�). To maintain the enforceability
of the settlement agreement, the Commission finds that the term �the
EEOC office� refers to the agency's EEO office.
The record reveals that the agency's EEO office conducted an investigation
on June 5 and 6, 2000. Twenty employees were interviewed. Further,
complainant fails to name any employee who was not interviewed,
or identify any evidence that the investigators failed to collect.
The agency complied with its obligations under the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
August 15, 2002
__________________
Date