01994290
03-16-2000
Kristin R. Shott, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Kristin R. Shott, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01994290
) Agency No. DON-99-65880-022
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's March 26, 1999 letter of
determination dismissing Complainant's breach of settlement agreement
claim, is proper pursuant to the provisions of 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29
C.F.R. �1614.504).<1>
The record shows that on April 9, 1998, Complainant, represented by an
attorney, reached a settlement agreement with the agency concerning her
formal complaints of discrimination on the bases of sex and reprisal.
The settlement agreement provided that the agency would restore to
complainant 157 hours of annual leave and 85 hours of sick leave; pay
back 68 hours of overtime; pay $6,775.00 in attorney fees; and guarantee
complainant the opportunity to work 100 hours of overtime during the
period of her temporary promotion to a Supervisor I position.
By letter dated March 9, 1999, Complainant claimed that the settlement
agreement had been breached. Complainant specifically stated that
the �reason [she believes her] settlement agreement has been violated
is that [she believes] that full relief was not offered nor addressed
in the agreement�. Complainant further claimed that her attorney had
allowed her to �sign off� her civil rights.
By letter dated March 26, 1999, the agency determined that no breach
of the terms of the agreement had occurred. On appeal, Complainant
contends that while she does �not have legal arguments to support [her]
appeal�, she does �have common sense�. Complainant acknowledges that
one of the reasons for signing the agreement was �monetary [because she]
was concerned about [her] attorneys fees�. Finally, Complainant argues
that she �agreed to settle, hoping that future discriminatory acts would
cease�.
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37, 660 (1999) (to be
codified and hereinafter cited as 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. If the complainant believes that the agency has failed
to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of the date when the complainant knew or should have
known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that
the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,
alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing
from the point processing ceased.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is
a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the
parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing
Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,
1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and
unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
Based on the record, we find that Complainant has failed to show
that the agency breached any of the terms of the settlement agreement.
Her dissatisfaction with both the settlement process and her own attorney
are not sufficient grounds to support a different finding. Accordingly,
the agency's final determination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
March 16, 2000
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________
____________________________________
DATE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANT1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the
revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable,
in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also
be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.