01A01642
03-02-2001
Carmen Guzman-Muelling, Complainant, v. William A. Halter, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Carmen Guzman-Muelling v. Social Security Administration
01A01642
March 2, 2001
.
Carmen Guzman-Muelling,
Complainant,
v.
William A. Halter,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01642
Agency No. RO 06194
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 3, 1999, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the September 12, 1994 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:
Management agrees to drop all disciplinary/adverse activity and purge
all negative documentation from her 7b extension file.
By letter to the agency dated July 21, 1999, complainant alleged that the
agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the agency
implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency
failed to remove all negative documentation from her personnel file.
Complainant indicates that during the agency's investigation of two EEO
complaints filed in 1997 and 1998, the agency produced eleven exhibits
which were a part of the negative documentation that was to be purged
pursuant to the 1994 agreement. Complainant seeks to have her complaint
reinstated from the point at which processing ceased.
In its November 3, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not
breach the agreement. Specifically, the agency's determined that the
documentation at issue came from an agency EEO complaint folder and not
from complainant's SF-7b file identified in the settlement agreement.
The agency determined that it therefore fully complied with the specific
terms of the 1994 settlement 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 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).
Upon review, the Commission finds that the settlement agreement provided
an affirmative agency obligation to remove negative documentation from
complainant's SF-7b file. The record indicates that the agency did
expunge the objectionable documentation from complainant's 7b extension
file in full compliance with the express language contained in the
agreement. In that regard, we find that the existence of documentation
in the agency EEO file does not constitute a breach of the 1994 agreement.
The Commission therefore determines that the agency's finding that it
complied with the settlement was proper and the agency's decision is
hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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
March 2, 2001
__________________
Date