0120161391
05-10-2016
Hermilia B.,1 Complainant, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hermilia B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161391
Agency No. NY120607SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's final decision (FAD), dated February 3, 2016, 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 Claims Representative at the Agency's Canarsie District Office in Brooklyn, New York. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On August 16, 2012, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Agency agrees to provide T2 cross over training via IVT in the District Office from September 17, 2012 through November 17, 2012. [Complainant] will join the initial claims unit under the supervision of [named supervisor] on October 1, 2012; and
(3) If the aggrieved believes that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of this agreement for any reason not attributed to her acts or conduct, the aggrieved shall notify the Associate Commissioner, Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the aggrieved knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance.
The Agency provided Complainant the training, which ended on February 13, 2013. During the training, Complainant attended four hours of training per day. On February 11, 2013, before the end of the training, Complainant contacted the SSA New York regional CREO to request to file a new EEO complaint.
In addition, by letter to the Agency dated June 12, 2013, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency reinstate her complaint.
Complainant's breach allegation was the subject of a prior appeal, filed on October 7, 2013. In our prior decision, OFO remanded the matter to the Agency for supplemental investigation and a new final decision regarding whether the Agency is in compliance with the August 16, 2012 settlement agreement. On December 26, 2015, Complainant sent the Agency documentation to supplement her initial allegations. She alleged that the settlement agreement was breached due to interruptions in her training and supervisory harassment. Specifically, she claimed that she "endured harassment and a hostile work environment while receiving T2 training from management personnel." Complainant stated that the "T2 training was negative and did not allow for the interaction and mentoring needed in order to learn the various T2 concepts." She also raised the issue of her "pending Hardship Transfer Request." That issue was addressed in a separate EEO complaint.
In its FAD, the Agency concluded that Complainant's allegation that the Agency breached Paragraph 1 was untimely raised. The Agency also concluded that the initial settlement breach allegation did not raise the issue of the hardship transfer request and that claim was untimely because "this is more than two years after the Agency in February 2013 approved [her] transfer request."
Next, the Agency found that it complied with the terms of the Agreement, which it reasoned "did not provide details on how the Agency would administer the training program or what requirements the training had to meet to be considered in compliance with the settlement." The Agency found that the "settlement said nothing about the training aside from the dates" and did not contain provisions obligating the Agency to provide interaction or mentoring." The Agency also found that Complainant did not establish that management disrupted her training to the extent that it violated the Agreement. The Agency also noted that this claim was the subject of a separate complaint (NY-13-0331-SSA). For those reasons the Agency found that Complainant failed to prove the Agency breached the settlement agreement.
This appeal followed.
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).
We find that the Agreement was valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement required that the Agency provide cross over training to Complainant in the District Office. The only other qualifier was that the training was to take place, starting on September 17, 2012.
The record shows that training was provided.
The Agreement also specified that subsequent claims of harassment would be addressed as separate complaints, rather than as a breach. To the extent that Complainant is alleging that the Agency was in breach "because the T2 training that the New York Region provided to [her] was deficient," we find that Complainant failed to show a breach of the terms of the Agreement. Moreover, we find that the claims of harassment are already the subject of other complaints and are also outside the scope of this compliance review.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's FAD, finding no breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 tends 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. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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
May 10, 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
0120161391
5
0120161391