01985357
01-24-2000
Glen R. Webster, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Glen R. Webster v. Department of Agriculture
01985357
January 24, 2000
Glen R. Webster, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01985357
) Agency No. 97-0427
Daniel R. Glickman, )
Secretary, )
Department of Agriculture, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On February 18, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated January 21,
1998, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the April 30,
1997 settlement agreement (SA, or the agreement) into which the parties
entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, and 37,660 (1999)(to be
codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulations 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402 and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b)). We accept complainant's appeal
in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the agency
would pay complainant $3,500 in exchange for his withdrawal of two EEO
complaints: one formal and, one informal. By letter to the agency dated
June 11, 1997, complainant alleged that the agency was in breach of
the settlement agreement. Although a copy of the June 11, 1997 letter
alleging noncompliance does not appear to be contained in agency case
file in this matter, we find, from our review of the entire record, as
well as complainant's appeal, that complainant contended the agency failed
to honor an oral agreement to pay him within a specified period of time.
In its January 21, 1998 FAD, the agency concluded, in relevant part,
that it had complied with the SA when it issued him a check, albeit the
funds were rejected when complainant returned the check in "the unopened
envelope to the agency." The FAD also denied complainant's assertion
that he was "coerced into signing the [SA]."
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). The burden of demonstrating noncompliance
with an SA is on the complainant. See Moore v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05930694 (April 7, 1994).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that complainant has failed to
meet his burden of proving the agency breached the SA. As a threshold
matter, we find no evidence that complainant was coerced into entering
into the SA. We further find that provision (6) expressly states that the
parties "are entering into the agreement voluntarily, without coercion or
duress, and they fully understand the terms of this agreement. Complainant
has had an opportunity to consult with a representative."What is more,
we find that the SA expressly provides, in pertinent part: "There are
no other agreements between the parties, either expressed or implied,
oral or written."
In addition, we find that the relevant provisions of the SA are plain and
clear on their face and that there was no expressed deadline by which
the agency had to pay complainant. We find, instead, that the agency
issued a check to complainant in the amount of $3,500 on or about May 6,
1997, but, in correspondence sent to the agency May 12, 1997, complainant
stated, in relevant part: "Disregard this Thursday dead line [sic] for
the delivery of your check.[<2>] Unless we can come to a much larger
settlement I have nothing further to discuss with you[.]" In this regard,
we note complainant, in the same letter, had informed the agency that
he had been advised by relatives, who he said were attorneys, that he
"would be a greedy fool to settle for what I said I would." Finally, we
find that the agency made two attempts to deliver a check to complainant,
but that he had twice refused to accept it. We find, in this regard,
that in correspondence, whose date is not clear, complainant informed
a named individual, apparently in the agency's Office of Civil Rights
(OCR), as follows, in relevant part:
I just came from the Post Office and had a certified letter. In it was
that check that was sent awhile back. A note told me this matter was
closed and if I didn't take the check I get nothing.
I have the United States Attorney's Office with a complaint ready to go
to the U.S. Court as soon as you people are done.
Having reviewed the entire record, the arguments on appeal including
those not expressly addressed herein, and for the foregoing reasons,
the Commission hereby AFFIRMS the FAD's determination that the agency
was in compliance with the agreement at issue.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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:
January 24, 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 Equal Employment Assistant
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.
2In what apparently was earlier correspondence to the agency, sent on
May 5, 1997, complainant asserted, in relevant part, as follows: "We
agreed that a rush on the settlement check would be done. I haven't
as of yet received this check. If this check isn't delivered to me by
Thursday, May 8, 1997 by 12:00 pm, the agreement will be off....If I do
receive a check after that date and time then it will be for the amount
I quoted you on the 28th of April, $10,000. If this is not agreeable
to you then the Federal Court System will decide this matter." We note
that complainant executed the SA at issue on April 29, 1997; the agency
signed the following day (April 30, 1997).