01A62265
08-31-2006
Barbara J. England, Complainant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Barbara J. England,
Complainant,
v.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A62265
Agency ADR No. 2003023
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
decision dated February 1, 2006 regarding her claim of breach of settlement
agreement dated October 22, 2003.
Complainant and the agency entered into a settlement agreement on October
22, 2003. The agreement provided, in relevant part:
1. Within 10 business days following the effective date of this
agreement, the agency shall assist in drafting an Individual
Development Plan (IDP) with complainant to address her
short/long term goals of being positioned to compete for a Team
Leader (GS-13) or Technical (GS-13) within 1 year.
2. The agency shall also investigate the opportunity for "details,"
including temporary promotions involving Technical and/or Team
Leader assignments for complainant.
By letter dated September 2, 2004, complainant informed the agency that she
believed that these provisions had been breached. Specifically,
complainant claimed that courses listed in her IDP were requested but her
requests were denied. On November 15, 2005, complainant submitted another
letter to the agency alleging breach again. Complainant claimed that
provisions (1) and (2) were breached when she was denied training that was
discussed and requested in conjunction with her IDP. Complainant also
expressed concern about not being presented with opportunities and/or
experiences.
The agency issued its final decision finding no breach. The agency noted
that complainant had an IDP developed and implemented effective December
11, 2003. Further, the agency indicated that complainant had been offered
acting team leader on December 24, 2003, February 13, 2004, and June 15,
2004.
Complainant appealed asserting that she was denied two courses that were
suggested by management during the development of her IDP. In addition,
complainant indicated, as to provision (2), that she was asked to support
the GS-13 Component Security Officer on the Systems but declined.
Complainant claims that management has not complied with the agreement.
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 Serv., 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).
Upon review, we find that the agency has not breached the settlement
agreement. As for provision (1), we note that the settlement agreement
only provides for the agency to assist complainant in drafting an IDP for
her short/long term goals of being positioned to compete for a Team Leader
(GS-13) or Technical (GS-13). The record clearly indicates that such an
IDP was developed. As for provision (2), the record indicated that
complainant had been provided with opportunities, however, she declined
them. Therefore, we conclude that the agency has not breached the
settlement agreement.
Accordingly, we affirm the agency's final decision.
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 31, 2006
__________________
Date