01a46170
02-04-2005
Maria Sauerman-Castorena, Complainant, v. Thomas J. Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency.
Maria Sauerman-Castorena v. Department of Homeland Security
01A46170
02-04-05
.
Maria Sauerman-Castorena,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas J. Ridge,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A46170
Agency Nos. I-OO-H007, I-01-W048
Hearing Nos. 340-A0-3575X, 340-A2-3640X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission for a determination
regarding whether the agency violated the terms of a settlement agreement,
which resolved an EEO complaint filed against the agency. The appeal
is accepted in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.401(e) and 405.
The record indicates that, on August 14, 2003, complainant and the
agency entered into a settlement agreement. The parties agreed that
complainant would withdraw her complaints against the agency, and that
the agency would:
1). Restore complainant to her term position as a District Adjudication
Officer with full pay and all benefits, including interest, to which she
would have been entitled had she been an agency employee from July 9,
2000, through the end of her term of employment, July 8, 2002. The agency
shall issue an amended SF52 to reflect termination date as of July 8,
2002, and shall calculate the back pay at the GS-9 Step 2 pay level.
2). Pay to complainant $75,000 in a lump sum payment as compensatory
damages, payable to [complainant and her attorney].
3). Pay to complainant attorneys fees in the amount of $30,000.00
payable to [complainant's attorney].
On August 15, 2003, an EEOC Administrative Judge, who had been assigned to
the case, dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement. On September 27, 2004, complainant contacted the
Commission in order to file �[a]n appeal against the agency.� Complainant
maintained that, �it has been over 1 year since this decision was made
and to this date the agency still [has] not complied with the Judges [sic]
order.� Although complainant provided a copy of the settlement agreement,
she did not provide any specific details regarding her concerns.
There is also no evidence that complainant, prior to contacting the
Commission, notified the agency of her contentions; consequently, the
agency did not issue a final decision addressing complainant's claim.
The agency, on appeal, provided documentation indicating that: (1)
it restored complainant to her term position as a District Adjudication
Officer with full pay and benefits for the period of July 9, 2000 through
July 8, 2002; (2) it paid complainant $75,000 in a lump sum payment as
compensatory damages; and (3) it paid complainant's attorney $30,000
in fees.
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). We find that the plain and unambiguous meaning
of the settlement agreement was that, in exchange for complainant's
promise to withdraw her complaints, the agency would provide the three
forms of relief set forth above. The agency made no other obligations
to complainant. Therefore, in light of the agency's proffer of evidence
indicating that it has complied with the settlement agreement, we find
no support for complainant's allegation of non-compliance.<1>
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
___02-04-05_______________
Date
1With regard to complainant's contention that the agency did not comply
with an order of the AJ,we note that nothing in the settlement agreement
refers to the AJ. Consequently, we must conclude that complainant is
referring to a matter that is unrelated to the settlement agreement and,
therefore, outside of our purview.