01A12179_r
05-18-2001
Julia D. Green, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Julia D. Green v. United States Postal Service
01A12179
May 18, 2001
.
Julia D. Green,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12179
Agency No. 4G-7600125-99
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision, issued on January 23, 2001, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the May 21, 1999 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Complainant will be sent to the next available class for certification
as a C.F.S. trainer.
By letter to the agency dated August 14, 2000, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. Complainant requested
that she receive the high level of pay, because she is the only trainer
since 1984, that has not been paid at that level.
In its January 23, 2001 decision, the agency concluded that the
settlement agreement had not been breached. Citing correspondence
between complainant's supervisor and a Senior Training Specialist,
the agency noted that complainant was scheduled for the next available
training class as required by the agreement. Specifically, complainant
was registered for a class on November 18, 1999. However, according to
the agency, complainant took Leave Without Pay (LWOP) and did not report
to the training. The agency determined that it met its obligation when
it scheduled complainant for the training, and that it was complainant's
responsibility to follow through and attend the training.
Complainant presents no contentions on appeal.
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 instant case, the settlement agreement provided that complainant
would be sent to the next available class for certification as a
C.F.S. trainer. The record indicates that soon after the agreement
was executed, complainant's supervisor requested the necessary
training. According to the training specialist, classes had recently been
offered and so the request would be placed on the wait list. Thereafter,
a course became available and complainant was scheduled to attend, as is
reflected in an October 18, 1999 memorandum regarding �Job Instructor
Training.� The record reveals that complainant utilized eight hours
of leave on the day before the training, and came to work late, using
one and half hours of leave, on the day of the training. The agency
contends that although it registered complainant for the training, as
required by the agreement, she did not attend. Complainant does not
dispute the agency's assertions. Therefore, we find that the agency is
in compliance with the terms of the May 21, 1999 settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is hereby 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
May 18, 2001
__________________
Date