Laurae A. Olison, Complainant,v.Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 18, 2000
01994544 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 18, 2000)

01994544

04-18-2000

Laurae A. Olison, Complainant, v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Laurae A. Olison, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01994544

) Agency No. 92-1570

Togo D. West, Jr., )

Secretary, )

Department of Veterans Affairs, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On May 11, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from an agency's decision dated April 9, 1999, finding that it complied

with the terms of the September 20, 1993 settlement agreement into which

the parties entered.<1>

In the September 20, 1993 settlement agreement, the agency agreed,

in pertinent part, to:

Reassign the complainant from her current position as a Procurement

Clerk to a position as a Purchasing Agent at the GS-5 level, effective

no later than forty-five days from the date of this agreement;

Provide the complainant with a fair and equitable work environment

free from harassment or any other discrimination based on race, color,

religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or reprisal for filing

these complaints.

By letter dated January 21, 1999, complainant alleged that the agency

breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the agency

specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that

the agency changed her position description (PD) to reflect clerical

duties rather than those of a Purchasing Agent. Complainant contended

that this action violated provision (d) of the agreement, and also

constituted reprisal in violation of provision (e).

In its April 9, 1999 decision, the agency concluded that it had not

breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency found that

complainant was alleging harm from subsequent acts that must be processed

as separate complaints, not claims of breach. The agency instructed

complainant to contact an EEO Counselor within forty-five days if she

believed that the actions were discriminatory.<2>

The question of whether a breach has occurred requires interpretation

of the settlement agreement. The Commission applies ordinary rules

of contract construction to settlement agreements. See Herrington

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December

9, 1996). The intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,

not some unexpressed intention, controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department 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 generally relies

on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991).

In the present case, the agreement is silent regarding how long

complainant's Purchasing Agent position would remain unchanged. In such

cases, the Commission has held that a settlement agreement placing

a complainant into a specific position, without defining the length

of service or other elements of the employment relationship, will not

be interpreted to require the agency to employ the complainant in the

identical job forever. See Papac v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC

Request No. 05910808 (December 12, 1991). Further, the agreement did not

prohibit the agency from changing the duties of her position. Therefore,

the agency's act of changing complainant's position description five years

after the agreement was signed, without affecting her title or pay status,

was not a breach of the settlement agreement. See Holley v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997) (finding

no breach where the agency moved the individual out of a position that

she received several years prior pursuant to a settlement agreement).

Complainant also argues that the changes violated section (e) of

the settlement agreement, a �no reprisal� clause. A complaint which

alleges reprisal or further discrimination in violation of a settlement

agreement's "no reprisal" clause, must be processed as a separate

complaint and not as a breach of settlement. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c).

Therefore, the agency properly instructed complainant to seek counseling

regarding her claim of reprisal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency' s dismissal is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

April 18, 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 1On 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.

2On appeal, complainant noted that she filed a formal complaint as

instructed in the agency decision.