0120170565
01-12-2018
Lindsey T.,1 Complainant, v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lindsey T.,1
Complainant,
v.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120170565
Agency No. 201526003FAA05
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated January 19, 2017, 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 was a Retiree from the Agency's Houston facility in Houston, Texas.
On September 21, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an ongoing EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2a) The Agency agrees that "once HR has notice that the Complainant is no longer in a retirement status and he has been returned to the FAA HR system, the Agency will issue an SF-50 transferring Complainant from HOU to IAH with an effective date September 27, 2014. Base annual salary will increase by 8% (half of the increase) (4%) on the effective transfer date (approximately $3,925) and the remaining half of the increase (4%) upon full certification..."
(2d) The Agency will initiate all actions in this paragraph within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Agreement or within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notices required in 2(a)-(c); whichever is later; and
(7) This document represents the entire Agreement between the parties, and the parties shall have no obligations to each other beyond those specifically enumerated in this document.
By letter to the Agency dated December 2, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. He requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that he had not received the final SF-50, which had not been uploaded into his eOPF. He stated that, upon information and belief, the Agency has received notice that "the Complainant is no longer in retirement status" and Complainant "has been returned to the FAA HR system."
The Agency did not issue a determination decision in response to the breach allegation. Complainant then filed this appeal directly with the Commission.
In its January 27, 2017 letter in response to Complainant's appeal, the Agency concluded that it complied with the Agreement by initiating implementation of term 2(a) prior to the date required in the Agreement. In addition, the Agency reasoned that it initiated the compliance process within 12-16 days after the Agreement was effective.
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 record shows that the Agency initiated the process of transferring Complainant from HOU to IAH on October 19, 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 2(a). The SF-2 was completed by the Shared Service Center on January 18, 2017. Paragraph 2(d) required the Agency to initiate its actions within forty-five days of the effective date of this Agreement. The record shows that the Agency met that requirement. Therefore, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Final Breach Determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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
January 12, 2018
__________________
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
0120170565
2
0120170565