0120162307
10-19-2016
Jonelle R.,1 Complainant, v. Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jonelle R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Ashton B. Carter,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Contract Management Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162307
Agency No. PS150216
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated May 31, 2016, 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 compliance action, Complainant worked as an Associate Counsel (Contracts) at the Agency's DCMA facility in Chantilly, Virginia.
On April 12, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2a) The Agency agrees, "Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Complainant will be duty stationed as an Associate Counsel for Contracts at the DCMA Manassas Contract Management Office, which is presently located at 15401 George Carter Way, Chantilly, VA 20151. Complainant will provide legal advice and services to support the DCMA Manassas Contracts Group and other DSMA offices within the geographic area covered by DCMA Manassas. ...The Agency reserves the right to assign or reassign personnel, workload or supervision, on a temporary or permanent basis, as needed, to address absences, changes in personnel, workload balancing or to support other mission-related requirements."
(6) By signing this Agreement, Complainant acknowledges and agrees that this agreement was voluntarily made and that she has had ample time to review and understand the terms and conditions contained herein. Complainant further acknowledges that neither the Agency nor any other person has coerced, threatened or intimidated her into signing this agreement and that her assent to the agreement is not based on any undue hardship or duress.
(8) This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties. If other promises, oral or written, have been made, they are not binding. Once effective, this Agreement may be changed or modified only by mutual agreement in writing by both parties.
By letter to the Agency dated May 27, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to continue her status as part of the Eastern Regional Command. She also alleged breach when her new supervisor sent an email to all of the attorneys which notified employees that she was no longer on the regional staff.
In its FAD, the Agency concluded that it had not breached the Agreement because the Agency reasoned that it complied with terms set forth in the Agreement.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant alleges that the Agency breached the Agreement when it did not permit her to remain on the staff of the Regional General Counsel, while she performed the work of the Associate Counsel for the DCMA Manassas Contracts Group and other DCMA offices within the geographic area covered by DCMA Manassas. She states that it was not her understanding that she would be removed from the regional staff and she was reassured that her position would not change. She also argues that the provision at issue is ambiguous because it may be interpreted in two different ways. She requests that the Commission interpret the contract as requiring her to remain on the regional staff.
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 is valid and binding on both parties.
In this case, the parties agreed that Complainant "will be duty stationed as an Associate Counsel for Contracts at the DCMA Manassas Contract Management Office," and that "Complainant will provide legal advice and services to support the DCMA Manassas Contracts Group and other DSMA offices within the geographic area covered by DCMA Manassas." This is clearly stated. Moreover, the Agreement made no reference to the Eastern Regional Command. Complainant is asking that the Commission substitute its judgment to interpret the parties' intent. It is not our role to decipher the parties' intent. In addition, the parties acknowledged that the Agreement set forth the entire agreement, that they understood the Agreement and confirmed that they reached the Agreement voluntarily and without duress.
For all of these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency that the Agreement was improperly entered, was ambiguous, or that the Agency breached the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 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 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
October 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
0120162307
2
0120162307