James C. Woodv.Department of Agriculture 01993034 02-21-01 .James C. Wood, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 21, 2001
01993034 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 21, 2001)

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.


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.