0120082214
08-05-2008
Thaddeus A. Knight, Complainant, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation), Agency.
Thaddeus A. Knight,
Complainant,
v.
Michael B. Mukasey,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Investigation),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120082214
Agency No. F-02-5696
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated March 31, 2008, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the December 13, 2004 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.
The December 13, 2004 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,
that:
(3) The parties agree that the FBI will pay to the Complainant the total
sum of Three Thousand and No/100 dollars ($3,000), which sum shall be
in full settlement, satisfaction and compromise any and all claims,
complaints, or causes of action by Complainant or whatsoever kind and
nature, known or unknown, which are or could have been the subject
of his Original complaint on file herein and/or which arose from or
are connected in any manner with his employment with the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) or the FBI. The parties further agree that
the FBI will make the required payment by check to [given address].
(4) The Agency will take all reasonable steps to insure that the
Complainant's separation and/or disability retirement paperwork will be
forwarded to the appropriate authorities in a timely manner.
By letter to the agency dated February 19, 2008, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to honor his request by not
returning him to a Worker's Compensation status under the Department
of Labor; and cease the retirement benefits he was receiving from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
In its March 31, 2008 final decision, the agency found no breach.
Regarding provision (3), the agency determined that since complainant did
not dispute that the FBI paid him $3,000 or that it was paid by check
to the address cited in the settlement agreement, there was no breach.
Regarding provision (4), the agency determined that a review of the record
reflects that complainant acknowledged receiving retirement benefits
through the OPM, it appeared from the record that the FBI complied with
provision 4 of the settlement agreement in that retirement papers were
submitted and he received retirement benefits through OPM.
On appeal, complainant contends that he did not receive the $3,000 check.
Specifically, complainant states that "no check was mailed to my residence
and the $3,000 that was mentioned in the agreement was deposited in my
attorney's account to be used as payment for his fees." Complainant
states that the agency did not forward his separation and disability
retirement paperwork to appropriate authorities in a timely manner.
Complainant states although he resigned from agency employment on May 21,
2004, the OPM informed him that on August 24, 2004, the agency reported
that complainant was not separated from agency employment. Complainant
states "I believe since the FBI failed to process my paperwork to OPM, DOL
and its own agency, in a timely manner, paragraph four of the agreement
has also been breached." Complainant states that as a result, "it has
been my view that I have not received the correct compensation."
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 O 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).
The record contains no evidence reflecting that the agency breached
provisions (3) and (4) of the settlement agreement referenced above. We
find that although complainant did not receive a check of $3,000.00 at his
mailing address, his attorney received the check on his behalf. Moreover,
there is nothing in the language of the subject settlement agreement
that provides management to return him to a Worker's Compensation status
under the OWCP and cease his retirement benefits he was receiving from
the OPM. If complainant and his attorney wanted resolution of additional
matters in the settlement agreement, he could have negotiated with
the agency to include such provisions. See Jenkins-Nye v. General
Service Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01851903 (March 4, 1987).
Thus, the Commission finds the agency complied with the December 13,
2004 settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no breach of the instant settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
August 5, 2008
Date
2
0120082214
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120082214
5
0120082214