0120162061
09-09-2016
Chrystal S.,1 Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Chrystal S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162061
Agency No. 166016901080
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated April 7, 2016, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On March 3, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(D) Obtain Complainant's input and provide an impartial and accurate evaluation of Complainant's duties and responsibilities within 14 days of the effective date. Complainant understands that the Agency Executive Officer will be the deciding authority on accepting any changes to the new Security Assistant Position Description, Agency Position No. MD354. If no changes are identified to Security Assistant Position Description, Agency Position No. MD354, then the Complainant accepts the duties and responsibilities found in that PD. If changes are made and agreed upon by the Agency Executive Officer, the Agency agrees to submit the position for classification advisory. Complainant understands that additional time would be required to request and obtain classification advisory. The Agency anticipates that if an advisory is requested, the results of the classification advisory will be returned to Complainant within 30 days of submitting the request for the classification advisory. The Agency agrees to keep Complainant current on the status of the classification authority.
By email to the Agency dated March 22, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that she was not given the opportunity to provide input prior to the PD evaluation. Complainant stated that the PD was classified prior to her meeting.
In its April 7, 2016 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency stated that a Manpower Management Officer met with Complainant on March 10, 2016, and provided Complainant with the opportunity to provide input, and asserted that she received an impartial and accurate evaluation of her duties. The Manpower Management Officer found that Complainant's position description was "appropriately written" and, therefore, no changes were made and the position was not reclassified. The Agency noted that by the terms of the settlement agreement, Complainant agreed that if no changes were made she would accept the duties and responsibilities found in the position description.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. 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).
As an initial matter, we find the agreement is valid and binding on the parties.
In the instant case, it is clear that the Manpower Management Officer met with Complainant on March 10, 2016. Complainant was allowed to give feedback and her responsibilities were explained to her. The Manpower Management Officer decided no changes were needed to the existing position description. The settlement agreement does not state that Complainant's input would automatically be accepted. We note that Complainant has not explained on appeal what changes she wanted to the position description. Agency management, under the terms of the settlement agreement, had the authority to decide on any changes, not Complainant. As such, we do not find that the Agency breached the settlement agreement.
The Agency's determination that it was not in breach of the agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 9, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120162061
2
0120162061