01A12207_r
05-24-2001
Samuel L. Jones, Complainant, v. Thurman M. Davis, Sr., Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.
Samuel L. Jones v. General Services Administration
01A12207
May 24, 2001
.
Samuel L. Jones,
Complainant,
v.
Thurman M. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Administrator,
General Services Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12207
Agency No. GSAR04990020
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed the agency's final decision dated January 19,
2001, which concluded that the agency had not breached the settlement
agreement between the parties. On March 24, 2000, the parties resolved
complainant's complaint by entering into a settlement agreement, which
provided, in pertinent part, that complainant would receive the following:
Except as prohibited by policy or legal determination, [the agency]
agrees that, if [complainant] attends a class on Anger Management
selected and paid for by [the agency], including travel and per diem,
[the agency] will grant [complainant] 318 authority (police authority),
under certain conditions. [complainant] agrees to attend every session of
the Anger Management class fully, and meet all criteria to qualify for
certain 318 authority, if it may be legally granted. Any 318 authority
granted would be exercised by [complainant] only upon specific direction
by his supervisor.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504 provides that if the complainant
believes that the agency failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, the complainant should notify the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance with the settlement
agreement, within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that
the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or,
alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing
from the point processing ceased. The agency shall resolve the matter and
respond to the complainant, in writing. If the agency has not responded
to the complainant, in writing, or if the complainant is not satisfied
with the agency's attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant
may appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the agency
has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement or final decision.
The Commission has held that settlement agreements are contracts between
the complainant and the agency and it is the intent of the parties
as expressed in the contract, and not some unexpressed intention, that
controls the contract's construction. Eggleston v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In addition, the
Commission generally follows the rule that if a 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 v. Building Engineering Services,
730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). The Commission has followed this rule
when interpreting settlement agreements. The Commission's policy in
this regard is based on the premise that the face of the agreement best
reflects the understanding of the parties.
By letter dated August 11, 2000, complainant alleged that the agency
breached the agreement by not issuing the complainant any 318 authority
upon completion of the Anger Management class. It is undisputed
that complainant completed and received a certificate for the Anger
Management class. The agency argues that, according to the settlement
agreement, complainant was required to participate in other training
before being issued 318 authority. Specifically, the agency argues that
the complainant has not completed the 40-hour in-service training and
Professional Development Training.
The provision of the settlement agreement in question not only requires
the complainant to complete Anger Management classes, but also requires
him to �meet all criteria to qualify for certain 318 authority.� The
agency submitted evidence of �in-service standard training requirements�
used to grant 318 authority. According to the training requirements
document, in-service training is required. Complainant has not shown
that he completed the 40 hour in-service training. Further, the training
requirements allow the Regional Federal Protective Service (FPS) Directors
to prescribe other training deemed operationally necessary. According to
the FPS Directors, completion of Professional Development Training is
necessary to grant 318 authority. Moreover, complainant does not argue
that the document is not the actual standard training requirement for
318 authority. Therefore, complainant failed to establish breach.
The agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
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
May 24, 2001
__________________
Date