01A21507_r
06-27-2002
Michael Griffin, Complainant, v. Sean O'Keefe, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.
Michael Griffin v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
01A21507
June 27, 2002
.
Michael Griffin,
Complainant,
v.
Sean O'Keefe,
Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A21507
Agency No. NCN-01-KSC-A051BD
DECISION
Complainant appealed the agency's October 25, 2001 decision, which
concluded that the agency had not breached the settlement agreement
between the parties. On October 26, 2000, the parties resolved
complainant's complaints by entering into a settlement agreement, which
provided, in pertinent part, that complainant would receive the following:
2(a) A two step increase (effective after current step increase is
effective);
2(b) Provide a high visibility detail into a GS-13 (Surveillance
Management or Budget Integration) position in the to the [sic] Shuttle
Processing business office with in [sic] 60 days;
2(c) Rotational assignments in supervisory positions in other PH groups
in the division.
On July 30, 2001, complainant sent correspondence to the agency alleging
that he was discriminated against on the basis of retaliation when:
His supervisor in the Business Office sabotaged his plans to succeed
in the position by denying training, failing to provide a training plan
per ISO standards, giving no guidance and making derogatory remarks and
evaluations of work performance.
A co-worker (manager) was promoted to Second Shift Lead, while complainant
was not informed of the promotion and was allowed to watch him move out
of the office with joy and happiness.
He was denied the opportunity to work the Surveillance function in his
Division, and was instead placed in the budget position.
He was denied the opportunity to return to his present work area and
was forced to go through PH Administration and KSC personnel to resolve
the issue.
The agency decided to treat complainant's claims as claims of breach
of the settlement agreement and, on September 19, 2001, the agency
requested more information regarding complainant's allegation of breach.
Complainant replied to the agency's request by letter dated October 5,
2001. After reviewing the complaint and the October 5, 2001 letter,
the agency found that complainant alleged that the agency breached
provision 2(b) of the settlement agreement when he was not assigned to
work in a Surveillance Management position, and breached provision 2(c)
of the settlement agreement when he was not allowed to return to his
former lead position in the Shuttle Processing Directorate's Safety and
Mission Assurance Division.
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 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).
Regarding provision 2(b) of the settlement agreement, we find that
complainant has not shown breach. Complainant alleges that the agency
is in breach of provision 2(b) of the settlement agreement because he
was placed in a Budget Integration position instead of a Surveillance
Management position. Provision 2(b) allows the agency to place
complainant in either position. Therefore, we find that complainant
has failed to show breach of provision 2(b) of the settlement agreement.
Regarding provision 2(c) of the settlement agreement, we find that
complainant has not shown breach. By memorandum dated September 21, 2001,
the agency offered complainant rotational assignments in other PH groups.
Therefore, we find that complainant has failed to show breach of provision
2(c) of the settlement agreement.
If complainant believes that he has been subjected to subsequent acts of
discrimination, then he should contact an EEO Counselor within 15 days of
the date this decision becomes final if he wishes to have the claims of
discrimination treated as a separate complaint under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106.
The agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement
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
June 27, 2002
__________________
Date