01a53249
07-26-2005
Manuel R. Archuleta, Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Manuel R. Archuleta v. Department of Agriculture
01A53249
July 26, 2005
.
Manuel R. Archuleta,
Complainant,
v.
Mike Johanns,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A53249
Agency No. 010503
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a March 9, 2005
agency decision finding that it was not in breach of the terms of the
December 14, 1995 settlement agreement into which the parties had entered.
In the settlement agreement, the agency agreed, in pertinent part,
to do the following:
1. Within ten (10) calendar days following the execution of this
agreement by both parties to offer the Employee a directed reassignment
to facilitate the Employee's discontinued service retirement effective
01/06/96.
2. Within (20) calendar days following the execution of this
agreement by both parties to submit to the National Finance Center
(NFC) the necessary documents to initiate the Employee's step increase
to step 10 of GS-15, effective retroactively to 12/04/92. Also within
this timeframe the Agency will submit to the NFC the necessary documents
requesting the Employee be compensated for backpay resulting from this
action, less applicable deductions.
Complainant agreed in the settlement agreement, in pertinent part,
to do the following:
1. Within twenty (20) calendar days following the execution of this
agreement by both parties to submit to the Agency the necessary documents
to initiate his retirement from employment with the Agency effective
01/06/96, based on discontinued service requirement.
Complainant alleged that the agency breached the agreement by forcing
him to retire. The agency issued a decision finding that it did not
breach the settlement agreement.
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. 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 O 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).
Complainant's argument that he was forced to retire is simply an argument
that he does not like the terms of the settlement agreement. A settlement
agreement made in good faith and otherwise valid will not be set aside
simply because it appears that one of the parties made a bad bargain.
See Devereux v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950531 (April
18, 1996). Therefore, we find that complainant has failed to show that
the agency breached the settlement agreement or that the settlement
agreement is somehow invalid.
The agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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), 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 26, 2005
__________________
Date