Albert McNeill, Complainant,v.Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 30, 2009
0120091896 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 30, 2009)

0120091896

06-30-2009

Albert McNeill, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Albert McNeill,

Complainant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120091896

Agency No. 2003-0554-2008102587

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision dated February 20, 2009, finding that it was in compliance

with the terms of the October 7, 2008 settlement agreement into which

the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402, .405, .504(b).

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

1. In return for, and in consideration of the actions specified in

paragraph 2, [complainant] hereby withdraws in its entirety his complaint

of discrimination Complaint Number 2003-0554-2008102587 . . .

2. The Agency shall:

a. Beginning FY09 (1st Quarter), the first-line Supervisor, currently

[], will hold at a minimum, quarterly mini training sessions to include

but not limited to the following topics as deemed necessary (appropriate

Union officials are invited to attend these meetings):

1. EEO Program Policies (No Fear/Whistleblower Act/Prevention of Sexual

Harassment and Reasonable Accommodations)

2. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Guidelines

3. Respect and Civility in the workplace

b. The first-line Supervisor, currently [], will send a memo to all

employees on her staff regarding the zero tolerance for inappropriate

behavior by close of business Monday, September 8th but no later than

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008.

By letter to the agency dated December 11, 2008, complainant alleged

that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested

that the agency reinstate the underlying complaint. Specifically,

complainant alleged that violations continued following the October

settlement agreement. Complainant alleged that a coworker (C1)

continuously used profane language in his presence and that of patients,

and made derogatory statements to him.

In its February 20, 2009 decision, the agency concluded that Agency

No. 2003-0554-2008102587 does not exist because complainant failed to

file a formal complaint within 15 days after receiving his Notice of

Right to File. The agency stated that the October 7 settlement agreement

was not based on a live controversy and the instant complaint was cited

only for reference. The agency noted that the subsequent actions by C1

are more appropriately addressed as a separate complaint. The instant

appeal from complainant followed, without comment.

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 O 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, we find that complainant failed to meet his burden of

proving breach. See Vega v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01986613

(June 30, 2000). Based on evidence of record, we agree with the agency

and find that the actions grieved here, harassment by C1, are subsequent

incidents that may be better addressed as a separate complaint, rather

than as a breach allegation. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). Therefore,

complainant may raise his claim of further discrimination as a new,

separate EEO claim, if he has not already done so. Complainant is advised

to contact an EEO Counselor if he wishes to pursue these matters through

the EEO process. Hence, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no breach.

However, we note to the agency that the withdrawal of the underlying

complaint (2003-0554-2008102587) is the consideration that complainant

provided in the October 7 settlement agreement and is not simply cited

for reference. Hence, its argument of a baseless settlement agreement

is without merit.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

June 30, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120091896

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120091896