01990003
11-30-1999
Sylvia Redschlag, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Sylvia Redschlag, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01990003
)
Louis Caldera, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Army, )
Agency. )
_______________________________ )
DECISION
Complainant filed the instant appeal by letter dated September 25,
1998 in which she alleged that the agency failed to comply with the
June 23, 1994 settlement agreement..<1> The instant appeal concerns a
breach of settlement allegation raised by complainant with the agency
in a letter dated August 12, 1998. The agency issued a decision dated
October 19, 1998 finding that the agency did not breach provision 3(E)
of the settlement agreement. Although complainant argues on appeal that
she raised other breach allegations in her August 12, 1998 letter, the
Commission finds that the instant appeal is limited to the allegation
raised in the August 12, 1998 letter which only concerned provision 3(E)
of the June 23, 1994 settlement agreement.
The June 23, 1994 settlement agreement provided (in part):
The Army agrees to:
. . . .
The undersigned agree not to provide any derogatory comments about
[complainant] as a result of any request for prior employment information.
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be
codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a)) provides
that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
parties shall be binding on both parties. If the complainant believes
that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement
agreement, then the complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the
alleged noncompliance "within 30 days of when the complainant knew or
should have known of the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a).
The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement agreement
be specifically implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated
for further processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
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
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th
Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is
a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the
parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing
Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,
1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and
unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the
four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence
of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering
Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).
In the August 12, 1998 letter, complainant alleged that the agency
breached provision 3(E) of the settlement agreement via derogatory
comments made by Person A. In an affidavit dated August 25, 1998,
Person A stated that upon request from Captain A of the Fort Carson
Staff Judge Advocate's Office, he provided a copy of the settlement
agreement to Captain A. Captain A stated in an affidavit that she was
the labor counselor assigned to defend the agency in the Merit Systems
Protection Board appeal involving complainant's removal from federal
service effective October 6, 1997. The agency found that the agreement
"does not prohibit the exchange of pertinent employment information
relevant to such actions as hearings or non-employment type issues."
The Commission finds that even if the agency's actions can be construed
as a release of information regarding complainant as a result of a
request for prior employment information (an issue we do not reach
in this decision), the information released was not of a "derogatory"
nature but was merely a purportedly factual account of complainant's
personnel history. Therefore, we find that complainant failed to show
that the agency breached provision 3(E) of the settlement agreement.
To the extent that complainant's breach of settlement allegation is a
collateral attack on the agency's litigation techniques used at the MSPB
hearing, we find that we shall not entertain such a collateral attack.
The agency's decision finding that complainant failed to show that the
agency breached provision 3(E) of the June 23, 1994 settlement agreement
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
November 30, 1999
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________________ _________________________ Date
Equal Employment Assistant1On 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.