0120161791
10-20-2016
Hershel B.,1 Complainant, v. Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hershel B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Ashton B. Carter,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Contract Management Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161791
Agency No. P8-14-0114
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated April 14, 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 Software IT Specialist at the Agency's Defense Contract Management Agency facility in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On December 16, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1)(d) Provide the Complainant with an ergonomic work station configuration at Orbital Sciences similar to Complainant's ergonomic work station setup at General Dynamics, his former duty station. There are no additional reasonable accommodations requests as a result of the execution of this Agreement.
By letter to the Agency dated March 25, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide him with the ergonomic work station configuration. Complainant indicated that the Agency had not taken action and failed to provide him with the ergonomic work station as indicated in the settlement agreement.
In its April 14, 2016 FAD, the Agency concluded that it did not breach the settlement agreement. The Agency asserted that Complainant alleged a violation of three provisions of the settlement agreement including (1)(d). The Agency noted that it did not provide Complainant with the same work station configuration from Complainant's former duty station. However, on March 31, 2016, the Agency provided him with an accommodation Complainant had previously suggested and did so within 90 days of the settlement agreement. As such, the Agency found that it had complied with all the provisions.
Complainant appealed noting that the only issue he had raised was provision (1)(d) of the settlement agreement regarding the Agency's failure to provide him with the ergonomic work station. He indicated that the Agency's final decision misrepresented the facts in that it provided him with an ergonomic station on April 13, 2016, not March 31, 2016, as indicated. Furthermore, Complainant stated that he previously suggested the work station as an accommodation. He asserted that his supervisor (Supervisor) made no indication that he was going to comply with the settlement agreement. Complainant noted that the Agency's final decision did not address his additional claims of denial of reasonable accommodation.
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, we note that Complainant does not argue that the work station he was provided failed to accommodate him. Complainant was concerned that the Supervisor did not demonstrate his intention to comply with the settlement agreement. However, despite Complainant's assertions, the Agency indicated that it has provided Complainant with an effective ergonomic work station which Complainant has not challenged.
We note that on appeal Complainant argues that the Agency failed to address his additional claims for reasonable accommodations. We find that Complainant should raise these claims of denial of reasonable accommodation as a new complaint and bring these issues to the attention of the Agency's EEO Office. Further, if in the future, the Agency changes Complainant's work stations such that it is no longer accommodating his condition, he should also bring this claim of denial of reasonable accommodation to the Agency's EEO Office.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
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 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. 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
October 20, 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
0120161791
2
0120161791