01993660
02-26-2001
Robert L. Womack, Complainant, v. Gregory R. Dahlberg, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Robert L. Womack v. Department of the Army
01993660
February 26, 2001
.
Robert L. Womack,
Complainant,
v.
Gregory R. Dahlberg,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993660
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated February 18, 1999, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the October 9, 1998 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. The settlement agreement, which settled the complaints
of complainant and another employee, provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4)(c). SAS [Army, Savannah District] agrees to convert the Complainants
to permanent appointments as Motor Vehicle Operators, WG-5703-06,
effective not later than two pay periods following execution of this
agreement.<1>
(4)(d). SAS agrees to approve travel vouchers in order that Complainants
are paid TDY in the approximate amounts set forth in the Attachment to
this Agreement. SAS has attempted to calculate these amounts according
to the Joint Travel Regulations. However, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center (�Finance Center�), and not SAS, ultimately
determines the appropriate amount of TDY to be paid to Complainants.
The Complainants agree that these approximate amounts are all that are
due and owing to them for unpaid TDY.
(4)(e). SAS agrees to pay the lump sum of $2,000.00 to each of the
Complainants within 60 days of the date of this agreement for personal
self-development.
By letter dated December 31, 1998, complainant alleged that the agency
was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the
underlying complaint be reinstated from the point where processing ceased.
Complainant alleged that the agency failed to provide him with a permanent
WG-6 Motor Vehicle position and pay him for TDY trips and $2,000.00 for
self-development. In its February 18, 1999 decision, the agency concluded
that the agency was not in breach of the October 9, 1998 agreement.
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).
On appeal, complainant claims that the agency only breached clause 4(c)
of the agreement. In the instant case, we find that the agency has
not breached the October 1998 settlement agreement. With respect to
clause 4(c) of the above agreement, we find, based on the record, that
complainant was placed in a permanent position as a WG-6 Motor Vehicle
Operator, effective October 25, 1998. Concerning clauses 4(d) and
(e), the Commission finds that the complainant is no longer challenging
compliance with these terms of the settlement agreement.
The Commission hereby AFFIRMS the agency's decision finding no breach
of the October 9, 1998 agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
February 26, 2001
__________________
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
______________________________
1With respect to this clause, there is an addendum to the agreement,
which in essence provides, that the Complainants will temporarily
perform the duties of a WG-06 employee until the conversion is complete.
Furthermore, the Complainants agree not to file subsequent complaints
regarding this temporary assignment.