01993034
02-21-2001
James C. Wood v. Department of Agriculture
01993034
02-21-01
.James C. Wood,
Complainant,
v.
Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993034
Agency No. 971332
DECISION
On March 2, 1999, complainant initiated a timely appeal to the
Commission for a determination as to whether the agency has complied
with the terms of a settlement agreement which the parties entered into
in September 1997. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.<1>
Complainant, an employee of the agency's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), filed a formal EEO complaint in December 1996, alleging
that he was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of his sex
(male). Complainant raised various issues concerning actions taken by the
State Conservationist. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement
agreement in September 1997, which provided, in pertinent part, that:
a. Within 30 days of resolution of this complaint, a statement will
be written and released jointly to the complainant and [the State
Conservationist] with a copy to the Chief of NRCS. That statement
will include the following elements: There has been a thorough, bona
fide investigation of [the State Conservationist's] actions, inactions,
and management, and corrective action has been taken; and
h(2). That within 30 days, the Regional Conservationist will write
a letter to complainant which will acknowledge the legitimacy of
[complainant's] principal concerns.<2>
Beginning in October 1997, complainant and his attorney wrote several
letters to the agency concerning its compliance with provisions a and h(2)
of the settlement agreement. Thereafter, on January 24, 1999, the agency
issued a final decision, finding that it had not breached the settlement
agreement. It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.
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.
In addition, 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. Roberts v. USPS, EEOC
Appeal No. 01842193 (May 8, 1985). The Commission has further held that
the face of the agreement best reflects the understanding of the parties.
See Wilson v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 01881684 (October 13, 1989).
In the case at hand, the record includes copies of two letters written
by the Regional Conservationist in October 1997, addressing provisions a
and h(2) of the settlement agreement. The first letter, dated October
3, 1997, included the language specified in provision a. The Regional
Conservationist, however, qualified the statement by providing that:
�where appropriate, certain corrective action has been undertaken.�
While complainant asserted that the letter should not have included
the qualifying statement, the Commission finds that the October 3,
1997 letter complies with provision a of the settlement agreement.
In so finding, it is noted that it would not be reasonable to interpret
the agreement as requiring the agency to take corrective action which
was inappropriate. Further, complainant contended that the agency did
not initiate a new investigation of the State Conservationist or take
any additional actions against her. A review of provision a and the
entire settlement agreement, however, reveals no such requirements.<3>
With regard to provision h(2), the Regional Conservationist summarized
complainant's concerns, in a letter dated October 8, 1997, listing
six issues raised by complainant. The Regional Conservationist noted
that complainant's principal concerns, that is, the productiveness and
tactfulness of managerial approaches, initiatives and interactions, and
interactions with partners and employees, were legitimate. Complainant
asserted that the agency failed to acknowledge all of his concerns.
Upon review of the record, however, the Commission is persuaded that the
Regional Conservationist's October 8, 1997 letter accurately reflects
the issues raised by complainant. Accordingly, we find that the agency
did not breach the settlement agreement in this case, and AFFIRM the
final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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), 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 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 (S0900)
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:
__________________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_____02-21-01_____________________________
Date
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 claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
Date
_________________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2It is noted that the settlement agreement also provided for complainant
to receive attorney's fees, a lump sum payment of $10,000.00, and a
one-year detail assignment.
3The agency represented that the State Conservationist had been subjected
to several investigations, and that multiple corrective action efforts
had been initiated at the time the parties entered into the settlement
agreement.