0120090674
02-11-2011
Dobson Collins, Complainant, v. Mike Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Dobson Collins,
Complainant,
v.
Mike Donley,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090674
Agency No. 9R1M08129
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency properly determined
that it did not breach a settlement agreement that the parties entered
into resolving Complainant's complaint. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504.
The Agency's determination not to reinstate Complainant's complaint is
AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
resolving the complaint. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent
part, that:
In exchange for the promises of Complainant in this agreement, [an
identified] management official representing 559 AMXS/DD Robins AFB
GA agrees to return [Complainant] to a WG-8852-10, Aircraft Mechanic
position within the C-5 Production Squadron when [Complainant's]
height restrictions are removed from his medical records in Occupational
Medicine Services (OMS). Complainant understands that he must go through
OMS to have the height restrictions removed. Management will return
[Complainant] to the WG-8852-10, Aircraft Mechanic position within thirty
(30) calendar days after [Complainant's] height restrictions have been
removed.
On September 17, 2008, Complainant claimed that management did not comply
with the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant indicated that
he submitted the required documentation to OMS and OMS cleared him from
any alleged medical restrictions and determined him fit to return to full
duty as a WG-8852-10 Aircraft Mechanic. However, instead of placing
Complainant in the WG-8852-10 Aircraft Mechanic, Complainant claimed
that he was required to perform the duties as a Fuel Systems Mechanic.
On October 21, 2008, the Agency issued its decision concerning
Complainant's alleged breach claim. Therein, the Agency stated that
Complainant was returned to a WG-8852-10, Aircraft Mechanic position
within the C-5 Squadron Fuels and Liquid Nitrogen Shop.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency breached the settlement
agreement since he was not placed into a position he originally held
prior to the complaint. Complainant also submits an Agency official's
affidavit indicating that Complainant was originally an Aircraft Mechanic,
WG-10, assigned to the Engine and Pylon Shop, with responsibility for
various maintenance on the C-5 aircraft until he was assigned to a Clerk,
GS-3 position on April 28, 2008, which prompted him to file the instant
complaint. Complainant's March 16, 2009 Appeal Brief, Exhibit A, p. 3.
In response to Complainant's appeal, the Agency indicates that
Complainant was returned to a WG-8852-10, Aircraft Mechanic position,
but was assigned to a different area/shop where he worked as a Fuels
System Mechanic, which fits within his position description duties, and
allowed the Agency to place an Aircraft Mechanic where it had a need.
The Agency contends that the settlement agreement was not breached.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
Under the settlement agreement at issue, upon OMS' clearing of
Complainant's height restrictions, which OMS did and the Agency does not
dispute, the Agency agreed to return Complainant to a WG-8852-10, Aircraft
Mechanic position. The Agency maintains that Complainant was placed into
a WG-8852-10, Aircraft Mechanic position under the settlement agreement.
Complainant contends that Complainant should have been placed in the
position he originally held, i.e., assigned to Engine and Pylon Shop,
and not Fuels and Liquid Nitrogen Shop. After a review of the settlement
agreement at issue, we find that the agreement did not provide Complainant
be assigned to any specific shop/duties, i.e., performing the duties of
Engine and Pylon Shop. Thus, we find that complainant's claim that he be
assigned to Engine and Pylon Shop is beyond the scope of the settlement
agreement at issue. Since Complainant was placed into a WG-8852-10,
Aircraft Mechanic position under the settlement agreement, we find that
the Agency complied with the terms thereof.
Accordingly, the Agency's decision not to reinstate the settled matter
is AFFIRMED.
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 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 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
2/11/11
__________________
Date
2
0120090674
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013