0120101260
06-24-2010
Paul E. Eason, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Paul E. Eason,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120101260
Agency No. DON-09-57095-01451
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final Agency
decision dated December 23, 2009, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the August 12, 2009 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402; 1614.405; and 1614.504(b).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The Agency will allow the Complainant to submit the resignation
letter dated as of 1 October 2009 . . . to be accepted in lieu of
the letter of termination that was issued to him, provided that the
Complainant signs the unaltered Resignation Letter and returns it with
this signed Agreement.
(2) The Agency will keep the Resignation Letter in the Complainant's
personnel file and will remove the termination letter from his personnel
file.
(3) Once this Agreement becomes effective, the Complainant will be
reinstated in Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status retroactive from 6 August
2009 until the resignation date of 1 October 2009, solely to enable the
Complainant to meet the eligibility requirements for early retirement
pursuant to BUPERSINST [Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction] 5300.10A
section 702(e)(2)(a). . . .
(4) The Agency agrees to provide the attached written
reference from [a department manager], which is hereby deemed
to be acceptable to both parties to the Agreement.
The Complainant hereby withdraws the Formal Complaint dated on or about
6 May 2009 (DON-09-57095-01451).
By letter to the Agency dated November 30, 2009, Complainant alleged that
the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant
alleged that the Agency failed to ensure that he met the eligibility
requirement for early retirement. Complainant stated that the Agency
agreed to place him in a leave without pay (LWOP) status until October
1, 2009 to make sure he met the requirement, but sent him a memo dated
November 12, 2009 indicating he was ineligible.
In its December 23, 2009 final decision, the Agency concluded that it
complied with the August 12 agreement. Specifically, the Agency stated
that it substituted Complainant's resignation letter for its termination
letter, cleansed Complainant's file of any reference to the termination
letter and provided a reference letter to Complainant. The Agency stated
further that it placed Complainant in LWOP status until October 1, 2009
as Complainant indicated that doing so would allow him to reach early
retirement age of 52 and the necessary time-in-service. The Agency
stated that the Human Resources Department that reviewed Complainant's
retirement application indicated that Complainant was not fully-vested
in the retirement plan because he was flexible status and ineligible
to participate in the retirement plan from December 2003 to April 2006,
and did not elect to enroll in the retirement plan until December 2007.
The instant appeal from Complainant followed.
On appeal, Complainant stated that the Agency should have contacted him
to renegotiate the terms of the agreement when it learned that he was
ineligible for early retirement. In opposition to Complainant's appeal,
the Agency stated that, in good faith, it agreed to allow Complainant
to meet the general early retirement requirements but did not agree to
provide Complainant any benefits to which he was not entitled.
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).
In the instant case, we find that the Agency is in compliance with the
August 12 settlement agreement. With respect to Paragraph (3) of the
agreement, the Agency reinstated Complainant to LWOP status retroactive
from August 6, 2009 until the resignation date of October 1, 2009.
We find that the remainder of that provision - "solely to enable the
Complainant to meet the eligibility requirements for early retirement
pursuant to BUPERSINST [Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction] 5300.10A
section 702(e)(2)(a)" - was not a guarantee that Complainant would be able
to retire on a particular day. Although both parties misunderstood the
eligibility requirement for 5300.10A section 702(e)(2)(a), we conclude
that the Agency complied with the express terms of the agreement when
it allowed Complainant LWOP to October 1, 2009. Further, the record
indicates that the Agency performed the provisions of (1), (2) and (4).
Based on a careful review of the record, we find that the Agency has
complied with the August 12 agreement with Complainant.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency final determination of no breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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 24, 2010
__________________
Date
2
0120101260
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120101260