01a01304
05-11-2000
Steven D. Aran, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Steven D. Aran, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A01304
) Agency Nos. AQFDFO-9705H0370
Louis Caldera, ) AQFDFO-9708H0590
Secretary, ) AQFDFO-980210060
Department of the Army, ) AQFDFO-980510150
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated November 5, 1999, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the September 14, 1998 settlement
agreement into which the parties entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to
as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The agency agrees to place complainant...to the permanent position of
School Age Services Specialist, GS-1701-7 (Step 7). The position is
located in the Youth Services School Age Service Program Family Suport
Division Directorate of Community Activities 34th Support Group Yongsan
Army Garrison, Seoul, Korea. The agency will place the complainant
in this position at a mutually agreed date, no later than 30 (thirty)
days of the date of this agreement.
By letter to the agency dated October 6, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the
agency reinstate his four EEO complaints. Specifically, complainant
claims that he entered into the settlement agreement under false
pretenses, and that there were outside verbal understandings which the
agency is not now honoring. In particular, complainant contends that
the agency failed to tell him that there was a GS-9 position available,
which he would have wanted instead of the GS-7 position, and that it was
understood that he was to get a living quarters allowance, and certain
other benefits, which the agency is now refusing to give him.
In its November 5, 1999 FAD the agency concluded complainant was placed
into the GS-7 position in the settlement agreement on September 27,
1998, and that there was nothing in the agreement about a living quarters
allowance or any other type of benefits.
On appeal, complainant contends that his statements should be considered
more credible than that of the agency, and additionally argues that he
signed the settlement agreement under duress.
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
In the instant case, the record confirms that the agency placed
complainant into the position identified in the settlement agreement,
in a timely manner, and there is no evidence to support complainant's
statements that he signed the settlement agreement under duress or false
pretenses. Moreover, as indicated above, it is well settled that the
intent of the parties is embodied in the terms of the agreement, and in
this case the terms are clear and did not include the additional benefits
complainant is now requesting. We are unpersuaded by complainant's
assertion that the settlement agreement required the agency to place
him into a GS-9 position, or to provide him with a living quarters
allowance and other benefits. To the extent that complainant interpreted
the provisions of the settlement agreement as requiring the agency to
place him into a GS-9 position and to provide the identified benefits,
such interpretation should have been reduced to writing as part of the
settlement agreement. Jenkins-Nye v. General Services Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01951903 (March 4, 1987).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no settlement breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 11, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where
applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as
amended, may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.