Gwendolyn B. Tyson, Complainant,v.Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 6, 2000
01a02168 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 6, 2000)

01a02168

04-06-2000

Gwendolyn B. Tyson, Complainant, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.


Gwendolyn B. Tyson v. Department of Health and Human Services

01A02168

April 6, 2000

Gwendolyn B. Tyson, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A02168

) Agency No. 97-049-HCF

Donna E. Shalala, )

Secretary, )

Department of Health and Human )

Services, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

The complainant timely filed an appeal with this Commission from the

agency's failure to take final action on her breach of settlement

agreement claim under 29 C.F.R. �1614.504.<1> The Commission accepts

the complainant's appeal pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

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

The parties entered into a settlement agreement on February 3, 1999.

Therein, the complainant agreed to withdraw her formal complaint of

discrimination based on her age ( agency case number

97-049-HCF, EEOC Hearing No. 120-98-9884). The agency agreed to

provide the complainant with training in how to prepare for an audit,

to conduct a desk audit of her position, and, "[i]f the desk audit shows

that Complainant is performing work outside her series, to re-classify

her position."

By letter of July 6, 1999, the complainant notified the Director of the

agency's Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights that the agency

had failed to re-classify the complainant's position in accordance with

the terms of the settlement agreement following the desk audit of the

complainant's position. When the agency did not respond, the complainant

filed this appeal.

On appeal, the complainant contends that in an Audit Summary Report, dated

March 18, 1999, the auditor stated that the complainant performs the same

tasks as the GS-107/9/ll health insurance specialists. The complainant

represents that the auditor also indicated that this function was the most

critical aspect of the work performed by the employee. The complainant

requests that the Commission order the agency to re-classify her position

as a GS-107-9 Health Insurance Specialist.

The question of whether a breach of a settlement agreement has occurred is

one of contract interpretation. The Commission repeatedly has held that

a settlement agreement between an EEO complainant and a federal agency

is a contract subject to ordinary principles of contract interpretation

and construction. See, e.g., Diyan v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05950032 (February 23, 1996) and Elliott v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950615 (December 13, 1995).

Generally, when interpreting the language of settlement agreements,

the Commission applies the "plain meaning" rule, that is, when the

settlement agreement language is plain and unambiguous on its face, its

meaning is derived from the agreement's terms without consideration of

evidence from outside of the agreement. See id. and Klein v. Department

of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Request No. 05940033 (June 30,

1994); see also, J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts �3-10, at 166-67

(3d ed. 1987). The Commission makes determinations about the parties'

intent in accordance with the plain, ordinary and common sense of

the words used in the agreement. Klein v. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, EEOC Request No. 05940033 (June 30, 1994). However,

where the terms of the agreement are ambiguous or for equitable reasons,

the Commission may go beyond the language of the agreement to ascertain

the intent of the parties. Wong v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Request No. 05931097 (April 29, 1994).

Applying these rules of contract interpretation, the Commission finds

that the agency promised to reclassify the complainant's position if

the desk audit showed that the complainant was performing work outside

the GS-303 series.

At the time of the agreement, the complainant's position was classified

as a GS-303-7 position in the Miscellaneous Clerks and Assistant Series.

She sought to have her position reclassified as a GS-107-9 position in

the Health Insurance Administration Series. The agency's Audit Decision

determined that approximately 90% of the work of the assistant position

included the following duties: writing analytical/statistical reports

and correspondence based upon data requests; inputting, updating,

and retrieving data from beneficiary payment records/reports; writing

non-routine correspondence and reports relative to the program area;

responding to inquires from the public; and identifying and clarifying

problem issues involving beneficiary payments. Although the agency's

Audit Decision concluded that these duties were consistent with the type

of work covered by the GS-303 classification standard, the record does

not support this conclusion in that the agency failed to include in the

record a copy of the GS-303 classification standards on which it relied.

However, the Commission takes administrative notice of the classification

standard issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for the

GS-303 Miscellaneous Clerks and Assistant Series (November 1, 1979)

that was referenced in the agency's Audit Decision. That standard

specifically excludes from its coverage positions that involve work which

requires knowledge of specialized processes or subject matter for which

a specific series exists. The standard also explains the difference

between assistant or technician work and the work of administrative or

program specialist trainees. The assistant workers carry out specific

procedures and use established methods. Problems and issues that do not

fit within the scope of established guidelines are usually referred to

administrative or program specialists for resolution. For administrative

or program specialist trainees, such assignments are a temporary stage in

their development to do work of a more judgmental and analytical nature.

Based on this guidance, and the description of the duties contained in

the Audit Decision, the Commission finds that the assistants perform

work which requires knowledge of specialized processes or subject

matter for which a specific series exists, i.e., the GS-107 Health

Insurance Administration Series. For this reason, it appears that the

assistant's work is not properly classified in the GS-303 Miscellaneous

Clerks and Assistant Series. In addition, the assistants admittedly

perform analytical work and work that requires judgment, for example,

writing non-routine correspondence and reports relative to the program

area. This non-routine work, consistent with the GS-303 Classification

Standards, would more properly be classified in an administrative series,

in this case, the Health Insurance Administration Series. Based on these

findings, the Commission concludes that the description of the assistant

duties set forth in the Audit Decision does not support the agency's

classification of the complainant's position in the GS-303 series.

More importantly, however, the Commission observes that in the settlement

agreement the agency agreed to perform a conduct a desk audit of the

complainant's position. The Commission finds that the Audit Decision does

not constitute a report of a desk audit in that it describes and discusses

assistant duties generally, rather than describing and classifying

the duties specifically performed by the complainant. The Commission

finds that the only document in the record which specifically reports

the results of a desk audit of the complainant's position is a document

submitted on appeal by the complainant, entitled Audit Summary Report

and dated March 18, 1999. The Report describes the complainant's job

duties in detail. These job duties are not of a routine nature that

would justify classification in the GS-303 Miscellaneous Clerks and

Assistant Series. The Report also describes the knowledge the complainant

possesses that is required to identify and resolve problems related to

Medicare beneficiary entitlement and enrollment. Again, this knowledge

appears to be knowledge of specialized processes and subject matter for

which a specific series exists. As to supervision received, according

to the Report, the complainant works independently on the same types

of assignments as the GS-107 Health Insurance Specialists. Her work,

like the work of the GS-107 Health Insurance Specialists, is reviewed

by a GS-11 Health Insurance Specialist on a 10% random sample basis.

Again, these factors point to classification in the Health Insurance

Specialist series, not the Miscellaneous Clerks and Assistant Series.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Commission finds that the agency was required

under the terms of the settlement agreement to reclassify the

complainant's position to the GS-107 series. Because the agency has

not done so, the Commission finds that the agency failed to comply

with the terms of the agreement. To remedy the non-compliance, the

Commission orders the agency to specifically comply with the agreement

by reclassifying the complainant's GS-7 position to the GS-107 Health

Insurance Specialist series.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to reclassifying the complainant's GS-7 position

to the GS-107 Health Insurance Specialist series. The agency shall

complete this action within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final.

The agency shall provide copies of the Notification of Personnel Action

form that effectuates the reclassification of the complainant's position

to the complainant, her representative, and the Compliance Officer

as referenced below within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action.

The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office

of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must

contain supporting documentation, and the agency must send a copy of

all submissions to the complainant. If the agency does not comply with

the Commission's order, the complainant may petition the Commission for

enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The complainant

also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with

the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition

for enforcement. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be

codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. ��1614.407, 1614.408),

and 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the

right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance

with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action."

29 C.F.R. ��1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or

a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline

stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant

files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint,

including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 64

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

to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.409).

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

April 6, 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 the complainant, the complainant's representative,

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.