Herta R.,1 Complainant,v.Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 31, 2016
0120150242 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2016)

0120150242

03-31-2016

Herta R.,1 Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Herta R.,1

Complainant,

v.

Robert McDonald,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs

(Veterans Health Administration),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120150242

Agency No. 200I05092010102950

DECISION

Complainant timely appealed to this Commission from the Agency's July 30, 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 at the Agency's Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia.

On May 4, 2010, believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. Specifically, she alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (undisclosed) when it terminated her during the probationary period of her employment.

On May 12, 2010, Complainant and the Agency successfully engaged in mediation, and the matter was resolved via settlement agreement on May 19, 2010 ("the Agreement"). The Agency's obligations under the Agreement were contained in provision 2(a), which states in its entirety: "The agency will allow Complainant to resign in lieu of termination with the effective date of April 16, 2010."

On February 25, 2014, Complainant contacted her congressional representative requesting assistance concerning the "Agency and Social Security." Under the portion of the intake form for describing the problem, Complainant wrote "need help getting my disable." On May 21, 2014, the form was forwarded to the Agency's Congressional Liason Service with an email from one of the representative's staff explainining that "to date Complainant alleges she has not received any compensation in regards to the settlement." On July 22, 2014, the matter was forwarded to the Agency's Office of Resoultion Management ("ORM") to be investigated as a breach of settlement claim. ORM informed Complainant by letter of acknoweldgement the same day. Complainant did not respond with any additional details.

The Agency found, pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a), that no breach occurred, or, in the alternative, Complainant's allegation was untimely.

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).

The record supports that Complainant knowingly and voluntarily entered the Agreement, which was reviewed by her representative. On appeal, she has not provided any clarification or evidence to support her allegation of breach, or answer the Agency's arguments in its decision. We also find sufficient documentation in the record that the Agency complied with provision 2(a) based on a plain meaning interpretation. Alternately, we agree with the Agency that Complainant's allegation, brought four years after the Agreement was executed, is untimely.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding that no breach occurred is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION

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

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

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

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

March 31, 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

0120150242

4

0120150242