0120160435
04-06-2016
Shawnta A.,1 Complainant, v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shawnta A.,1
Complainant,
v.
Sylvia Mathews Burwell,
Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services
(Indian Health Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160435
Agency No. HHS-IHS-0062-2013
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's September 25, 2015 decision, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. We accept the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed at the Agency's Albuquerque American Indian Health Services facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
On October 27, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(9) The Agency agrees to provide [Complainant] a lump sum payment of $20,000.00 for non-economic compensatory damages and [Complainant's] attorney with a lump sum payment of $10,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs, both of which are due within 45 days from the full execution of this Agreement; and
(13) [Complainant] agrees that she clearly and fully understands the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that she voluntarily entered into this Agreement after being provided an opportunity to review it and consult with counsel, and that she fully agrees to its terms. The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement constitute the entire Agreement between the parties and there are no other representations or obligations.
On February 15, 2015, Complainant states that she learned that Agency reported the $20,000.00 payment to her on IRS Form 1099 as "other income," and this rendered it subject to income tax withholding. By letter to the Agency dated February 27, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms by reissuing a new statement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to properly report the payment that Complainant received as "non-economic, non-taxable compensatory damages." This matter had been the subject of a prior EEOC appeal, Complainant v. Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), EEOC Appeal 0120151639 (August 13, 2015). The Office of Federal Operations (OFO) remanded this matter back to the Agency for a determination as to whether it breached the Agreement.
In its September 25, 2015 FAD, the Agency again concluded that the breach claim had been untimely filed, but it also notified Complainant that the Agency determined that it had not violated the Agreement. Rather, the Agency stated that Complainant violated the terms of the Agreement. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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, there was nothing in the Agreement that precluded the Agency from using a Form 1099 to report the settlement payout to the Internal Revenue Service. Although Complainant argues that the parties' clear intent was that the funds are non-taxable, this was not set forth in the Agreement itself. The Agreement did not specify if, how, or, on which form, the Agency would report the monetary benefits. For these reasons, we find that the Agency did not breach the Agreement by its reporting the payout or by its use of the Form 1099. Because we are addressing Complainant's claims directly, we need not address the Agency's alternative argument, that the claims were untimely submitted or submitted to the wrong official.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 6, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120160435
4
0120160435