David Santiago, Complainant,v.Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 21, 2000
01995969 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 21, 2000)

01995969

03-21-2000

David Santiago, Complainant, v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


David Santiago, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01995969

) Agency No. 98-1223

Togo D. West, Jr., )

Secretary, )

Department of Veterans Affairs, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On July 21, 1999, complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from

a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 17, 1999, finding that

it was in compliance with the terms of the June 22, 1998 settlement

agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC

Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b). The Commission

accepts the appeal for review pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659

(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

By letter dated April 23, 1998, the agency proposed to remove complainant

from his Housekeeping Aid position. Complainant filed a formal complaint,

but agreed to withdraw his complaint in the June 22, 1998 settlement

agreement. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that

complainant would participate in a last chance/removal abeyance agreement.

The last chance agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the agency

would:

(1)(a) Hold the effective date of the decision to remove [complainant]

in abeyance for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days . . ., so long

as he continues to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement;

(1)(b) Detail [complainant], effective June 22, 1998, for a period not

to exceed ninety (90) days to the position of Food Service Worker;

. . .

(1)(f) Rescind the removal after ninety (90) days of satisfactory

compliance with this agreement.

In the last chance agreement, complainant agreed to:

Meet the following performance standards at a satisfactory level or

better at the end of the ninety (90) day period:

Be fully trained in and able to perform the tasks for which the position

is responsible;

Be knowledgeable of the regular and modified diets . . .;

. . .

Understand and apply the principles of sanitary food handling practices

necessary in a health care food production and service environment;

. . .

Maintain satisfactory attendance, conduct, performance, and working

habits that are acceptable to management.

By letter dated September 29, 1999, complainant alleged that the agency

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

reinstate his prior complaint. Complainant argued that the agency acted in

bad faith when it offered him a position that �set him up for failure.�

Complainant argues that agency failed to reasonably accommodate his

disabilities at the Food Service Worker position, harassed him at the new

work site, and then removed him when he was unable to perform the job.

Meanwhile, complainant filed a formal complaint, Agency No. 98-4356,

alleging discrimination when, inter alia, the agency failed to advise

complainant of his responsibilities in the Food Service Worker position;

failed to reasonably accommodate him in the Food Service Worker position;

harassed him with progress reports noting deficiencies in his performance

of the position; and removed him from employment on September 4, 1998.

By final decision dated March 15, 1999, the agency dismissed the claims,

but later rescinded the March 15, 1999 decision, and accepted the

complaint for investigation on June 23, 1999.

The record includes a letter from complainant to a psychiatrist, dated

June 21, 1998. In this letter, complainant admits difficulty deciding

whether to sign the settlement agreement, because he has heard the Food

Service Worker position is very stressful and will be difficult for him

to perform given his mental condition. The record includes a document

entitled �Progress Report,� which cites complainant for failing to wash

his hands before handling food on repeated occasions, failing to perform

simple tasks such as cleaning the floor and counting beverages, and making

no effort to learn about patient diets. The record also contains a copy

of the notice of removal, dated August 28, 1998, removing complainant from

employment because he failed to comply with the last chance agreement.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 instant case, the Commission finds that the agency did not act in

bad faith in its settlement offer. The record reveals that complainant

was aware that he was being offered a difficult, high-stress position.

Complainant had the option to proceed with his complaint, but instead

opted for placement in the Food Service Worker position pursuant to the

settlement agreement. Further, the agency did not breach the agreement

by terminating his employment when he failed to perform the tasks required

in the last chance agreement.

EEOC Regulations require that subsequent acts of discrimination be

processed as separate complaints, not as a breach of a settlement

agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). In the present case, complainant

alleges harm from subsequent acts of discrimination, including the

agency's failure to accommodate complainant at his new position,

harassment in the new position, and termination. Complainant raised

these issues in a separate formal complaint, and the agency properly

processed them as an individual complaint of discrimination, not as a

claim of breach.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the agency did not breach the

terms of the June 22, 1998 settlement agreement, and the agency properly

dealt with the subsequent acts of alleged discrimination as a separate

complaint.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 (S1199)

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:

March 21, 2000

____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where

applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,

may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.