0120150884
05-19-2016
Jessie G.,1 Complainant, v. Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator, Small Business Administration, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jessie G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Maria Contreras-Sweet,
Administrator,
Small Business Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150884
Agency No. 1113003
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's final decision (FAD) dated December 9, 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 as a Supervisory Loan Specialist at the Agency's El Paso Disaster Loan Servicing Office facility in El Paso, Texas. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On June 18, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4) Within 45 calendar days of the effective date of this Agreement that Complainant will receive a Quality Step Increase to GS-13 step 09 with an effective date of January 1, 2013.
On June 30, 2014, the Agency processed the negotiated Quality Step Increase, moving Complainant from a GS 13, Step 8 to a GS 13, Step 9. During the processing of this action, the Agency discovered that it previously underpaid Complainant with regard to the March 2012 Within Grade Increase, to which he was entitled. To correct that problem, the Agency implemented a series of adjustments, which the Agency completed by October 31, 2014.
By letter to the Agency dated November 3, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to pay him "back-pay for [the] Quality Step Increase to a GS-13, Step 9 effective January 1, 2013, and subsequent payments until October 31, 2014." He requested that the Agency reinstate his complaint.
The Agency concluded that it had not violated the terms of the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that the terms of the Agreement did not mention back-pay. The Agency acknowledged that Complainant was entitled to additional pay due to the underpayment error. To correct the error, the Agency delineated an action plan to correct Complainant's pay and salary history.
This appeal followed.
Complainant did not file a brief in support of his appeal. The Agency opposed the appeal, arguing that the appeal was not timely and that the Agency did not breach the settlement agreement.
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).
We find that the Agreement was valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement did not reference any back-pay. Instead, the Agreement only required the Agency to provide Complainant with a Quality Step Increase to a GS 13, Step 9. The record shows that the Agency provided the negotiated step increase, which was made effective January 1, 2013. The adjustment was made within the 45 day period specified in the Agreement. For these reasons, we find that the Agency complied with the terms of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's 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 tends 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
May 19, 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
0120150884
4
0120150884