Felix R.,1 Complainant,v.Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 1, 2016
0120150308 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 1, 2016)

0120150308

03-01-2016

Felix R.,1 Complainant, v. Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Felix R.,1

Complainant,

v.

Sally Jewell,

Secretary,

Department of the Interior

(Bureau of Indian Affairs),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120150308

Agency No. (None Provided)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a Decision on Compliance (Decision) by the Agency dated May 18, 2014, 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

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Program Specialist (Math) at the Agency's Flandreu Indian Schools facility in Flandreu, South Dakota. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On September 13, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the Agency would:

(1) Rescind [Complainant's] termination during probation letter dated May 19, 2011.

(2) Correct Employee's position title to read Education Specialist (Math).

(3) Correct Employee's position description to reflect accurate duties/responsibilities of the position (see attached statement of duties) [parentheses in original].

By letter to the Agency dated November 13, 2012, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement but did not specify the exact nature of the breach.

In its June 16, 2014 Decision, the Agency concluded it had not breached the agreement. The Agency noted that Complainant's termination during his probationary period had been rescinded, his position title had been corrected, and his position description had been corrected to reflect his duties and responsibilities.

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).

In the instant case Complainant has not specified the exact nature of the alleged breach. On appeal, Complainant states that he "does not dispute that [the Agency] rescinded his termination, supported most clearly through the fact that he continued working for [the Agency] until April of 2012, nor does he dispute that [the Agency] corrected his position title and description." Complainant's Appeal Brief, p. 4. Instead, Complainant maintains that he has been subjected to additional discriminatory actions by the Agency subsequent to the signing of the agreement, and that these new acts constitute a breach of the agreement. Because Complainant does not dispute that the Agency complied with the three numbered terms of the agreement listed in the "Background" section of this decision, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency breached the agreement.

With regard to Complainant's allegations of new acts of discrimination, such acts do not constitute a breach of the agreement but are more appropriately addressed as new claims. Should he wish to pursue such claims, Complainant, if he has not done so already, should contact an EEO Counselor, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105.

CONCLUSION

The Decision is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0815)

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, 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 (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

March 1, 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

0120150308

2

0120150308