01A13863_r
03-20-2002
Richard K. Wells, Complainant, v. Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Richard K. Wells v. Department of the Air Force
01A13863
March 20, 2002
.
Richard K. Wells,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. James G. Roche,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13863
Agency No. AL900010535
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated May 1, 2001, finding that it did not breach
the December 22, 1999 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[T]he agency agrees to pay the complainant $2477.02 for repairs to his
wheelchair. This will be accomplished no later than 30 days from the
date of the signing of this agreement.
By letter received by the agency on April 24, 2001, complainant
claimed that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement.
Specifically, complainant notified the agency that in 1995 he requested
that handicapped door openers be installed, or that the agency have the
pull adjusted to five pounds on many of the doors. Although three door
openers were installed in the summer of 2000, nothing else was done to
the remaining doors.
In its May 1, 2001 decision, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement had not been breached, because the settlement agreement
included no promises to complainant other than the payment of $2477.02
for repairs to complainant's wheelchair. On appeal, complainant claims
that the agency's EEO Counselor misinformed and mislead complainant, and
that complainant was induced to sign the settlement agreement under the
�reasonable belief� that the agency intended to comply with complainant's
request for the door repair.
The Commission has 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).
In the instant case, the December 22, 1999 settlement agreement contains
no mention of the installation of automatic doors or any kind of door
repair. The parties only agreed that the agency would pay complainant the
sum of $2,477.02 to repair his wheelchair. The settlement agreement is
plain and unambiguous, and there is no need to examine extrinsic evidence.
Therefore, the agency's decision finding no breach of the December 22,
1999 settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.<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
March 20, 2002
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1If complainant wishes to file a complaint alleging that the agency
is failing to reasonably accommodate him, then he must contact an EEO
Counselor (if he has not already made such contact).