Myron W. Cummings, Appellant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 7, 1998
01980748 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 7, 1998)

01980748

10-07-1998

Myron W. Cummings, Appellant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Myron W. Cummings, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01980748

) Agency No. AL900980097

F. Whitten Peters, )

Acting Secretary, )

Department of the Air Force, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely appealed the agency's decision finding that it had

complied with 29 C.F.R. �1614.504. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.402, .504(b);

EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether appellant timely raised his allegations

of settlement breach.

BACKGROUND

Appellant filed a formal EEO complaint that was subsequently resolved

by a settlement agreement that the parties entered into on January 29,

1997. The agreement stated in relevant part that the agency agreed to

do the following:

The Colonel agrees to a management reassignment and pay retention IAW

5 C.F.R. �536. (Position offered is Management Analyst, GS-343-09,

in the Manpower Office).

The Colonel agrees to permit pay and grade retention, if determined to

be legal.

The Colonel agrees to implement and complete reassignment action as soon

as possible (2 to 3 weeks).

By letter dated August 6, 1997, appellant requested that he receive

grade retention. Appellant stated that the Colonel as part of the

settlement agreement, agreed to provide him pay and grade retention if

it was deemed legal. Appellant claimed that he received pay retention

but not grade retention. According to appellant, the Chief, Personnel

Management Element provided him with the regulation that states when

grade retention applies. Appellant argued that settlement agreements

are not excluded by the regulation.

By memorandum dated August 15, 1997, the agency responded that although

the settlement agreement was signed on January 29, 1997, appellant did not

contest the relevant provision of the agreement until six months later.

The agency reiterated that appellant would not be granted grade retention.

The agency stated that pursuant to 5 C.F.R. �536.103(a), grade retention

shall apply to an employee who moves to a position in a covered pay

schedule which is lower graded than the position held immediately prior

to the demotion in the following circumstances:

(1) As a result of reduction in force procedures; or

(2) As a result of a reclassification process.

By letter dated September 9, 1997, appellant notified the agency

that it had breached the settlement agreement by not granting him

grade retention. Appellant claimed that although grade retention is

not listed in the pertinent regulation, grade retention is legal when

offered in a settlement agreement.

On October 27, 1997, the agency issued a final decision wherein it

determined that it had not breached the settlement agreement. The agency

noted that although it determined that grade retention is not within the

law, pay retention is allowable. According to the agency, pay retention

was implemented when appellant was reassigned to his new position,

following his release from sick leave. The agency noted that appellant

was apprised by the Civilian Personnel Office immediately after he signed

the settlement agreement that he could not receive grade retention.

On appeal, appellant contends that no written guidelines exist with

regard to what can and cannot be offered in settlement agreements.

Appellant claims that the Civilian Personnel Office has refused to approve

grade retention despite the fact that the agreement states that �This

agreement does not need to be approved by the Civilian Personnel Office�.

In response, the agency asserts that appellant is untimely in his

allegation that the settlement agreement has been breached. The agency

argues that appellant learned that he would not receive grade retention

on January 29, 1997, the date that the settlement agreement was signed,

but that appellant did not claim the agreement was breached until his

letter dated September 9, 1997. Additionally, the agency states that

the Chief, Personnel Management Element provided appellant with a copy

of the law on grade retention on January 30, 1997. In support of its

position, the agency submits a copy of the personnel action effective

February 14, 1997, that reflects appellant's reassignment. The agency

notes that the remarks section stated that appellant is entitled to

pay retention, but no remark was made with regard to grade retention.

According to the agency, appellant received a copy of the personnel

action in February 1997. The agency further asserts that the settlement

agreement has been honored and implemented, but that grade retention is

not permitted by law in these circumstances. The agency notes that grade

retention shall apply to an employee who moves to a position in a covered

pay schedule which is lower graded than the position held immediately

prior to the demotion if the move is a result of a reduction in force

or as a result of a reclassification process. The agency maintains

that although the agreement states that it did not need to be approved

by the Civilian Personnel Office, this statement did not eliminate the

requirement to abide by personnel regulations. Further, the agency notes

that appellant was placed on notice that the grade retention would occur

only if it was legal.

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.

If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with

the terms of a settlement agreement or final decision, the complainant

shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance

within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the

alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of

the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the

complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing

ceased.

In the case at hand, appellant alleges that the agency breached the

settlement agreement by not granting him grade retention. However, it

is evident from the record that appellant was informed by the Chief,

Personnel Management Element on January 29, 1997, and January 30, 1997,

that his situation did not meet the criteria for the granting of grade

retention. It was explained to appellant that he would not receive grade

retention because his demotion was not the result of a reduction in force

or a reclassification process. Appellant did not raise an allegation

of noncompliance with regard to this issue until more than six months

after he learned that he would not receive grade retention. Therefore,

we find that appellant failed to raise an allegation of noncompliance

in a timely manner. Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby

AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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:

Oct. 7, 1998

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations