0120141895
10-10-2014
Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Robert McDonald,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120141895
EEOC No. 540-2013-00090X
Agency No. 200P-0501-2012103567
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission before the issuance of any final decision (FAD) by the Agency. On April 24, 2014, Complainant filed a direct appeal to the Commission with regard to the garnishment of his settlement money. In a response dated May 7, 2014, the Agency determined that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. We accept the appeal as if it were from that determination. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was an applicant for employment at the Agency's New Mexico Veteran's Administration Medical Health Care System facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
On March 26, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the above-referenced EEO complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) The Agency shall pay Complainant, in consideration for the withdrawal [of his complaint] Three Thousand U.S. Dollars ($3,000.00) as a lump sum payment. The Agency will pay the entire total of $3,000.00 by direct electronic deposit into the Complainant's bank account [identified in the agreement].
The Administrative Judge assigned to the case dismissed the hearing request because a settlement had been entered.
On April 9, 2014, Complainant informed the Agency that the money that the Agency deposited into Complainant's account had been garnished by the Department of the Treasury. Of the $3,000 deposited, $2,999.00 had been intercepted and applied to a debt balance owed by Complainant, according to the Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and a state agency. The Agency played no part in the Treasury Department's garnishment of Complainant's settlement money. The record documents that "if there is a valid Government debt existing in the Treasury system, the payment is not disbursed to the intended recipient, but redirected to the satisfaction of the outstanding debt in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA)."
Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency requested repayment. Complainant expressed disagreement and dissatisfaction with the collection method used by the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue (IRS). Specifically, he challenged the validity of the reasons used by the Department of Treasury to collect the debt, as illegal and a denial of due process. Complainant maintained if he had not settled for money, but opted to be placed in the position, the garnishment would not have occurred or would have resulted in only a 25% garnishment.
In its May 7, 2014 response to the appeal, the Agency maintains that it complied with the terms of the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that it paid the settlement money, as directed to his designated account, and the money was credited to Complainant and used to satisfy Complainant's debt. The Agency stated that a second payment of the settlement money to Complainant would result in an unjust enrichment since Complainant received the benefit of the electronic transfer payment to the bank account which he identified. The Agency requested that the Commission dismiss Complainant's appeal.
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 the instant case, the parties agreed that the Agency would deposit $3,000.00 by electronic deposit to the bank account identified by Complainant. The record reflects that the Agency issued the electronic payment which was deposited to Complainant's credit, but withdrawn by another entity to offset a claimed debt. The agreement did not require the Agency to do anything more than it did in this case. To the extent that Complainant disagrees with the validity of the indebtedness, this is a matter for him to direct to the Department of the Treasury and to the Los Angeles County Executive Office. We find that the Agency did not breach the Agreement. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's determination as stated in its response to this appeal.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 tends 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 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
October 10, 2014
__________________
Date
2
0120141895
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120141895