0120172303
12-19-2017
Thad P.,1 Complainant, v. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Thad P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Scott Pruitt,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172303
Agency No. 20160106R04
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated July 24, 2017, 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this compliance action, Complainant worked as an Environmental Protection Specialist at the Agency's Region 4, Chemical Safety and Enforcement Branch facility in Atlanta, Georgia.
On September 2, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4a) The Agency agrees that, "within 30 days after the last signature on this agreement, the Agency will reassign the Complainant to a one-year detail to the Air Analysis and Support Branch with a new PARS agreement;"
(4b) At the end of the one-year detail, the Complainant will have a discussion with the [named] Division Director about the best path concerning job duties and which branch the Complainant will be assigned to; assignment of work shall remain the prerogative of management and Complainant may be returned to his position of record.
On April 28, 2017, the Chief, Communities Support Section, APTMD spoke with the Deputy Director in the hallway and asked the Deputy Director how the Complainant was doing. The Chief informed Complainant that the Deputy Director wanted to hear his perspective on how the detail was going. On May 4, 2017, Complainantt met with the Deputy Director. During the meeting, Complainant discussed his thoughts about where he would be a good fit after the completion of the detail.
By letter to the Agency dated May 18, 2017, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency reinstate his underlying complaint. Specifically, Complainant stated that, according to the settlement agreement, the discussion should only take place at the end of his detail with the division director. He states that he was caught off guard by this meeting and feeling uncomfortable about his role and what to expect.
After Complainant waited thirty days and the Agency had not responded to his breach claim, Complainant filed this appeal.
In its brief in opposition to the appeal, the Agency concluded that it did not breach the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that "the time for the Agency and Complainant to comply with their respective obligations under paragraph 4 and 5 have not yet come to pass." The Agency stated that it has not breached paragraph 4b of the agreement because its obligation under "paragraph 4b is not yet ripe." Further, the Agency found that the May 4, 2017 meeting was beyond the scope of the terms of the agreement, which specifically provides for a discussion with the Division Director, not the Deputy Director.
For purposes of this analysis, we construe the Agency's Brief in Opposition as its Breach Decision.
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).
We find the Agreement is valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement requires that at the end of the one-year detail, the Complainant will have a discussion with the Division Director regarding "the best path forward." At the end of the one-year term, Complainant will initiate a discussion with the Division Director. As of this date, the detail continues and that discussion has not yet occurred.
For these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency has breached the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's breach determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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
December 19, 2017
__________________
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
0120172303
2
0120172303