01981646
11-16-1999
Martha L. Williams, Complainant, v. David J. Barram, Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.
Martha L. Williams, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01981646
) Agency No. 97-R7-PBS-MLW-01
David J. Barram, )
Administrator, )
General Services Administration, )
Agency. )
_________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed the instant appeal from the agency's November 26,
1997 decision finding that the agency did not breach the settlement
agreement entered into by the parties on June 5, 1997.<1> The record
does not include a copy of the entire settlement agreement (a portion
of the right side of the first page of the agreement appears not to have
been copied). There appears to be no dispute, however, as to the terms of
the agreement; furthermore, the portion of the agreement that is legible
is consistent with the terms of the agreement as defined by the agency.
The copy of the agreement contains a portion of all relevant provisions.
The agreement, as defined by the agency, provided:
To reassign [complainant] to the Customer Service Center, Austin,
TX, Field Office (7PMN-AU), Customer Service Specialist, GS-1101-11,
effective June 8, 1997, reporting date no later than 30 days from the
date of this agreement.
During the interim, GSA will provide [complainant] with telecommuting
arrangements until item a. is met.
To provide travel authorization for [complainant] to conduct a site
visit at the Austin Field Office, no later than 10 days from date of
execution of this agreement.
To provide [complainant] with all allowable relocation costs pursuant
to Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) in reference to her reassignment,
as described in item a.
Complainant alleged that the agency breached the agreement in the
following manner: (1) the agency did not provide a computer to complainant
for tele-commuting until 19 days from the date of the agreement; (2)
the site visit was accomplished only because complainant took the
initiative; (3) irregularities regarding relocation arrangements;
(4) complainant was informed that her new job duties as a Customer
Service Specialist would be determined as "we go along" and that
she would be presented with her critical elements at a later date;
(5) complainant's new office configuration was not comparable to other
employees' work space or comparable to the work space complainant left;
and (6) complainant's new position was a non-bargaining unit position.
The agency found that the agency 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 shall be
binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency
has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the
complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance
"within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of
the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant
may request that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically
implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated for further
processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the complainant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is
a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the
parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing
Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,
1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and
unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
The Commission finds that the agency was not obligated to provide
complainant with a computer under provision (b). Complainant admits
that she was able to conduct the site visit at issue in provision (c).
Complainant has not shown how certain irregularities with the relocation
arrangements constitute a breach of the agreement. Complainant has not
shown that any specific cost was improperly denied pursuant to "Federal
Travel Regulations" as specified in provision (d) of the agreement.
Complainant has not claimed that she the agency did not offer to reassign
her to the Customer Service Specialist position as provided for in
provision (a) of the agreement or that the agency actually failed to
let her perform Customer Service Specialist duties. The agreement
did not provide that complainant would be provided with any particular
office space or that the Customer Service Specialist position would be
a bargaining unit position. The Commission concludes that complainant
has failed to show that the agency breached the settlement agreement.
The agency's decision finding that the agency did not breach the
settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
November 16, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATION 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:
______________________________________
__________________________1 On 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.