0120160864
05-06-2016
Johnathon M.,1 Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Johnathon M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Farm Service Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160864
Agency No. FS-2013-00682
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission regarding his claim that the Agency breached 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 Program Support Officer at the Agency's Los Padres National Forest in California.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. Complainant filed a formal complaint which was investigated. The complaint was pending before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).
On September 15, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The preamble of the settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this agreement shall be understood as preventing, limiting or otherwise restricting the Complainant from pursuing a claim for federal workers' compensation; nor shall anything in this agreement, including but not limited to the Complainant's "voluntary resignation," be understood as having any kind of limiting effect on the Complainant's entitlement to federal workers' compensation benefits.
The settlement agreement also provided that Complainant would resign from his employment effective September 19, 2015. The parties agreed that the Agency would list on Complainant's SF-50 the following language, "Voluntary resignation for medical reasons" and if a third party inquired about Complainant, the Agency would only indicate that the Complainant's employment ended with his resignation.
During this time, Complainant had a claim pending before the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) with the Department of Labor. On September 22, 2015, the Agency provided OWCP with Complainant's SF-52. On November 13, 2015, OWCP issued Complainant a letter denying his claim.
By email to the Agency dated November 19, 2015, Complainant's Attorney (Attorney) alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency provided information to OWCP which restricted his claim. The Attorney asked that the Agency inform OWCP that the resignation was at the request of the Agency and not "self-initiated." On December 17, 2015, the Agency responded to the Attorney denying that the Agency breached the settlement agreement. On December 21, 2015, the Attorney filed the instant appeal asserting he has not received any decision from the Agency.
The Agency responded to the appeal. The Agency argued that it did not breach the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Agency noted that it is standard Agency practice to notify the Department of Labor with a copy of the SF-52 providing its reason for the change in Complainant's employment status. Further, the Agency noted that the SF-52 stated in the remarks section "Voluntary resignation for medical reasons" as required by the Settlement Agreement. Further, the Agency argued that straying from providing the information to the Department of Labor would be an attempt to mislead or manipulate Complainant's OWCP claim. The Agency could not condone such action. Finally, the Agency noted that although the OWCP denial letter states that Complainant resigned, the reason for the denial was Complainant's failure to provide medical evidence. Therefore, the Agency asked that the Commission reject Complainant's claim that it breached 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).
In the instant case, Complainant asserted that the Agency breached the Settlement Agreement when it provided OWCP with documentation showing that he had voluntarily resigned from the Agency. Complainant asserted that this was in violation of the language in the preamble of the Settlement Agreement. Complainant noted the alleged harm cannot be undone and asked that the Agency inform the Department of Labor that Complainant did not initiate his absence from employment and that the absence was at the behest of the Agency.
The Settlement Agreement preamble states that nothing in agreement shall be construed to prevent, limit or otherwise restrict Complainant from pursuing a claim for federal workers' compensation. Complainant has not indicated that any such action has occurred. Complainant had been permitted to pursue his claim with OWCP. The preamble of the Settlement Agreement further provides the voluntary resignation should not have "any kind of limiting effect on the Complainant's entitlement to federal workers' compensation benefits." The Settlement Agreement did not guarantee Complainant's entitlement to these benefits. A review of the response by the Department of Labor shows that the OWCP claim was not denied based on the Agency's disclosure of Complainant's employment status. The OWCP denial letter clearly stated that his "claim is denied as the evidence of record at this time fails to support disability during the period." In addition, the information provided to the Department of Labor was the exact language agreed upon by the parties in the Settlement Agreement based on third party inquiries into Complainant's employment with the Agency. As such, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established a breach of the Settlement Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final 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 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. 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 6, 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
0120160864
5
0120160864