01a01020
05-11-2000
Lisa L. Rounsavell, Complainant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Lisa L. Rounsavell, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A01020
Rodney E. Slater, ) Agency No. 5-98-5161B
Secretary, )
Department of Transportation, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated September 29, 1999, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the July 19, 1996 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4) The facility manager, [Person A], will work in conjunction with
[complainant] (and others as needed) to identify training or other
assistance she will need to address her sexual harassment coping concerns.
This should be accomplished within 90 days.
The facility manager will check once quarterly with [complainant](and
others as needed) to determine how things are working out. The facility
manager will document the results of these quarterly meetings.
This quarterly check will last for a period of two years unless
[complainant] requests that it be discontinued.
By letter to the agency dated September 17, 1998, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically reinstate her complaint for further processing
from the point processing ceased. Specifically, complainant alleged
that the agency failed to provide her with the training required by
paragraph (4) of the settlement agreement. Complainant stated that she
did attend a course entitled,�Positive Approaches to Difficult People�
in June 1998, but she claimed that the course did not relate to sexual
harassment concerns. As relief, complainant requested that her complaint
be reinstated for further processing.
In its September 29, 1999 decision, the agency concluded that it was
not in breach of the settlement agreement. The agency stated that
complainant delayed in identifying training courses until March 1998.
The agency noted that upon complainant's identification of training
courses, the agency approved her attendance at one of those courses.
Specifically, the agency stated that complainant attended the �Positive
Approaches to Difficult People�training in June 1998, and therefore
complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The record shows that on March 27, 1998, complainant listed six classes
she considered appropriate to meet the agency's requirement to provide
her with training to address her sexual harassment coping concerns,
including the course entitled �Positive Approaches to Difficult People.�
As indicated by an attendance sheet complainant attended a training
course entitled �Positive Approaches to Difficult People�on June 25 -
26, 1998.
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter referred to 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. 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. Department of Defense, 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. 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 has generally relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon
v. United States Postal Service, 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 present case, the settlement agreement provided that the facility
manager would work together with complainant to identify training or
other assistance needed to address her sexual harassment coping concerns.
The agreement further provided that this should be accomplished within
ninety days of the date the agreement was made final. The agreement was
signed by both the agency and complainant on July 19, 1996. The record
contains no evidence that the agency attempted to identify or work with
complainant to identify any training to assist her prior to complainant's
March 27, 1998 request for training. Therefore, we find that the agency
was in breach of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby REVERSES the final agency determination
that the agency complied with the settlement agreement at issue and
REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with the Order
below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to reinstate complainant's case from point
when processing ceased as a result of the July 19, 1996 settlement.
The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant that it has received
the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision becomes final. The agency shall resume processing in accordance
with the applicable regulations.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant must be
sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,
the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a
civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior
to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a
civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph
below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407
and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the
underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �
2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
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 (R0400)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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:
May 11, 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.