0120111596
09-07-2012
Lunetta Blanks, Complainant, v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, Department of Labor, Agency.
Lunetta Blanks,
Complainant,
v.
Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary,
Department of Labor,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111596
Agency Nos. 06-09-106 and 08-09-014
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission regarding the Agency's compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. In the absence of any determination regarding the Agency's compliance, we deem the Agency to have denied Complainant's allegations that the Agency has breached the Settlement Agreement of March 2, 2010, and we accept Complainant's appeal from that determination.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to the complaints underlying the Settlement Agreement, Complainant worked as an Investigator at the Agency's Employee Benefits Security Administration facility in Pasadena, California. On March 2, 2010, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve specific EEO matters between the parties, and the Agreement acknowledged specific pending EEO complaints that were not resolved by its terms.1 The Settlement Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. (c) [Complainant] and the Agency desire to settle fully and finally all claims associated with the following cases: Blanks v. Solis, Agency No. 06-09-106; Blanks v. Chao, MSPB Docket No.SF-3443-07-08l9-M; and Blanks v. Solis, Agency Case No. 08-09-014. (hereinafter "Released Claims").
(d) [Complainant] and the Agency do not intend to resolve the claims in Blanks v. Solis, Agency Case No. 08-09-120 and Blanks v. Chao. Agency No. 07-09-036. Blanks v. Solis, Agency Case No. 08-09-120 is
presently on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of Federal Operations. The OFO issued a final decision in Blanks v. Chao; Agency No. 07-09-036 on January 16, 2009. [Complainant] and the Agency also do not intend to resolve a claim [Complainant] believes to have related to an application for employment to the Agency under the Agency Announcement Number DE-09-SF-EBSA/LA-140 ("Unreleased Claims").
By letter to the Agency dated December 27, 2010, 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 she learned on December 23, 2010, that S2, an Agency official identified as a responsible management official in Complainant's prior released complaints (Agency case numbers 06-09-106 and 08-09-014) relied on incidents at issue and documents pertaining to the claims in those cases as a basis to not select Complainant for an investigator position in Pasadena, California (Complainant's former position) for which Complainant had subsequently applied in September 2009. Complainant learned on February 20, 2010, that approximately 13 new investigators had been hired and that she had not been selected. That non-selection is the subject of Complainant's complaint, Agency case number 10-09-062.
On appeal, the Agency states that at the time of the hiring of the investigators in February 2010, Complainant and the Agency had not achieved resolution of Complainant's complaints that were resolved by the March 2, 2010 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Agency could not have breached an agreement that did not yet exist at the time of the selection process.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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, we note that Complainant states that she applied for her former investigator position in September 2009, and that on February 20, 2010, she became aware that the Agency hired approximately 13 investigators. Complainant was aware that she was not selected at that time. We find that as of February 20, 2010, the parties had not entered into the instant settlement agreement. We therefore find that the Agency did not breach the March 2, 2010 Settlement Agreement as alleged.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency's determination that no breach of the Settlement Agreement occurred as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 7, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record shows that the parties previously entered into a settlement agreement dated November 18, 2009. That Agreement was subsequently revoked on November 25, 2009, and is not at issue herein.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120111596
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111596