Juli Z.,1 Complainant,v.Eric K. Fanning, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 11, 2016
0120162311 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 11, 2016)

0120162311

10-11-2016

Juli Z.,1 Complainant, v. Eric K. Fanning, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Juli Z.,1

Complainant,

v.

Eric K. Fanning,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162311

Agency No. ARASC15JUN05092

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 complaint, Complainant worked as a Director of Education at the Agency's Area Support Group, U.S. ARCENT Command facility in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

On September 11, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(4) the Agency agrees to approve Complainant's attendance at Supervisor / Managerial training during FY 2016

(5) the Agency agrees to approve Complainant's attendance at EEO Supervisor training in FY 2016.

By letter to the Agency dated May 23, 2016, 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 on May 22, 2016, her supervisor (the Deputy Director of DIS) suggested that Complainant take the online EEO for Supervisors Course and the Supervisor Development Course. Complainant told the Agency that the online courses do not fulfill the requirement of the Agreement.

Subsequent to the receipt of the noncompliance claim, the Agency made arrangements to locate the appropriate resident training courses for which Complainant could register. By email communication, Complainant advised management that, on June 27, 2016, she had registered for the courses. Complainant attached "certificates of completion for the required training supervisory Development Course, EEO for Non-Supervisors" and she stated that had "also completed the Management Course.

In its May 31, 2016 FAD, the Agency concluded that Complainant's appeal was premature because Complainant filed her noncompliance claim before the end of the fiscal year and the Agreement allowed for completion of the course by the end of FY 2016. The Agency also noted that it immediately took steps to find the appropriate courses after Complainant notified the Agency of her breach claim.

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, the Agency agreed to approve training for Complainant. The period for compliance had not expired at the time Complainant filed her breach claim. In addition, the record confirms that the Agency approved the training within 30 days of the date on which Complainant notified the Agency of her breach claim. For these reasons, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency breached the Agreement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Decision, finding no breach.

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

October 11, 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

0120162311

2

0120162311