James T. Lee, Complainant,v.Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 26, 2007
0120073080 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 26, 2007)

0120073080

09-26-2007

James T. Lee, Complainant, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


James T. Lee,

Complainant,

v.

Dr. Donald C. Winter,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073080

Agency No. 06-4523A-00069

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 22, 2007, finding that it was in

compliance with the terms of the January 25, 2007 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.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: Complainant

will be paid the lump sum of $400.00. Payment will be initiated within

30 days from the effective date of this agreement.

By letter to the agency dated May 25, 2007, 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 $400.00 lump sum

payment.

In its June 22, 2007 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach the

settlement agreement. It noted that agency officials initiated payment

on February 15, 2007, within 30 days of the signing of the January 25,

2007 settlement agreement. Further, the agency indicated that there were

problems in the processing of the request and that agency officials had

to follow up with the payment request. The agency sent a check on May

15, 2007, to complainant; however, it was mailed to the wrong address.

The entity issuing the check informed the agency of the error and another

check was issued to complainant on May 29, 2007. Complainant informed

the agency of his receipt of the check in June 2007. Therefore, the

agency found that it had complied with the settlement agreement.

Complainant appealed asserting that this was the first he had heard

of the agency initiating payment as early as February. Based on his

conversations with individuals involved with payment, the requests

had not been made by March 13, 2007. Complainant asserted that there

were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the agency's chronology of

the payment. As such, complainant requests that the Commission review

the issue at hand.

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. Department of Defense,

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. Department 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. United States Postal

Service, 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, there is no question that complainant received the

$400.00 payment in June 2007. Although complainant asserted that the

agency did not respond within the timeframe of the settlement agreement,

the agency has provided affidavits from individuals involved in the

requesting of the payment for complainant. A review of the record shows

that the agency uninitiated payment within 30 days. Further, complainant

received payment in full. Therefore, we find that the agency has not

breached the settlement agreement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding no breach of

the settlement agreement.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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

September 26, 2007

__________________

Date

2

0120073080

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120073080