Carolina G. Leal, Complainant,v.Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 1, 2000
01a05537 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 1, 2000)

01a05537

11-01-2000

Carolina G. Leal, Complainant, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Carolina G. Leal v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01A05537

November 1, 2000

.

Carolina G. Leal,

Complainant,

v.

Hershel W. Gober,

Acting Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A05537

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision by the agency dated July 26, 2000, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of the March 6, 1998 settlement agreement into

which the parties entered.<1> 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:

(2) The [agency] agrees to do the following:

The complainant shall receive priority consideration for any registered

nursing (RN) position vacancy that complainant qualifies for at VACHCS,

West Side Division, for a period of two years from the date of this

agreement. Priority consideration shall require VACHCS, West Side

Division to list the complainant's name only for any vacant position she

applies for and is found qualified for, in the first list considered

by the selection panel or the selecting official. If complainant is

not selected, the selecting panel or official must provide a written

statement with bona fide job considerations why a different candidate

was selected over the complainant.

By letter to the agency dated July 24, 1999, complainant alleged that the

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

agency reinstate her EEO complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged

that the agency failed to give her priority consideration for several

RN position vacancies for which she was qualified in the VACHCS West

Side Division between April 1998 and the present. Complainant stated

that not only did the agency fail to consider her for the RN positions

but it even failed to notify her of the vacancies.

In its July 26, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that it did not breach

the May 6, 1998 settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency stated

that complainant did not apply for any positions during the relevant

time period, as required by the terms of the settlement agreement. Thus,

the agency stated that it was not in breach the 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).

In the present case, we find that the agency was not in breach of

the May 6, 1998 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.

Complainant claims that the agency breached the agreement by failing to

give her priority consideration for several RN vacancies at the VACHS

West Side Division. The agency stated that complainant was to receive

priority consideration only for the positions for which she applied and

was found qualified and argued that since she did not apply for any RN

position it did not breach the agreement. The agreement defines priority

consideration as requiring the agency to �list the complainant's name

only for any vacant positions she applies for and is found qualified for�

during a period of two years from the date of the agreement. Complainant

does not claim, and the record does not show, that complainant applied

for any RN position vacancies during the relevant period. In addition,

we reject complainant's argument that the agency was under an obligation

to notify her of any vacancies, since the plain language of the agreement

does not require the agency to notify complainant of any RN vacancies.

Accordingly, the agency's decision that it did not breach the settlement

agreement was proper and is 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

November 1, 2000

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

______________________________

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply

to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the

administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.