01982121
03-17-2000
William L. Reynolds, Complainant, v. Bill Richardson, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.
William L. Reynolds v. Department of Energy
01982121
March 17, 2000
William L. Reynolds, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982121
) Agency Nos. 95(84)OR
Bill Richardson, ) 95(138)AL
Secretary, )
Department of Energy, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed the agency's decision that denied his
claim that the settlement agreement entered into between the parties
had been breached. (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be
codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), and (see
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b)), and is accepted in accordance with 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405)
.<1>
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency breached the settlement
agreement.
BACKGROUND
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint dated March 13, 1995 (Agency
No. 95(84)OR), wherein he alleged that he was discriminated against
on the bases of his race (black), age (49), physical disability (50%
disabled veteran), and in reprisal for his previous EEO activity when
he was not selected under Vacancy Announcement 94-75 for the position
of Program Specialist, GS-301-13. Complainant filed another formal EEO
complaint on July 8, 1995 (Agency No. 95(138)AL), wherein he alleged
discrimination on the bases of his race (black), color (black), age
(49), and physical disability (disabled veteran) when he was denied the
position of Public Participation Coordinator after qualifying, and he
was denied the opportunity for further competition when these jobs were
readvertised under another job classification series.
The complaints were resolved by a settlement agreement entered into on
October 30, 1995. The agreement stated in relevant part that the agency
agrees to:
1. Provide the Complainant with $39,369.67 in backpay, $61,644.64 in
front pay and other benefits including appropriate withholdings, and
2. Contact the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Personnel and
Civil Rights offices concerning the reference information provided to
selecting officials at Oak Ridge Operations by [ ], a former supervisor
of the Complainant at the EPA. The objectives of these contacts are to
make the EPA aware of the type of information [the former supervisor]
is providing, to suggest that the agency discuss this matter with [the
former supervisor], and suggest that the EPA provide general letters of
reference for the Complainant.
Complainant agreed in part not to apply for a position with the agency,
including its field elements, for one year from the effective date of
the agreement. The agreement also provided in part that:
If the terms specified by this agreement are not carried out or are
rescinded for any reason not attributable to the acts or conduct of the
Complainant, this complaint is subject to reinstatement upon receipt of
the Complainant's written request.... Any request for reinstatement of
this complaint must include a full explanation of why the Complainant
believes that the terms of this agreement have not been met.
By letter dated November 21, 1997, complainant notified the agency that
it had breached the settlement agreement. According to complainant,
his reference materials at the agency have prevented him from obtaining
appropriate positions for which he is qualified. Complainant claimed that
he has been blacklisted and is unable to find work in his field within
the government. According to complainant, the agency was obligated
to contact the EPA's Personnel and Civil Rights Offices concerning the
reference information provided by complainant's former supervisor at the
EPA so as to ensure that the former supervisor's biased information not
be allowed to corrupt his excellent record. Complainant requested that
his complaints be reinstated.
By letter dated December 1, 1997, the agency responded that the agreement
did not obligate the agency to ensure that any information the former
supervisor or the EPA might furnish about complainant would not harm
his record. The agency emphasizes that its obligations under the
settlement were to inform the EPA about the type of information his
former supervisor was providing, and to suggest that the EPA discuss
this matter with the former supervisor and provide general letters
of reference for complainant. The agency further stated that it has
not blacklisted complainant, and is unaware of any attempts by any
other government agency to blacklist him. The agency determined that
complainant failed to articulate how it breached the agreement.
By letter dated December 5, 1997, complainant claimed that the letter
and spirit of the settlement agreement has not been carried out.
Complainant again requested that his complaints be reinstated.
In its final decision dated January 7, 1998, the agency determined that
the settlement agreement has not been breached. The agency determined
that complainant provided no evidence to support his contention that the
letter and spirit of the agreement has not been fulfilled. The agency
stated that it has done all that it agreed to do. According to the
agency, in a letter dated March 4, 1996, it contacted the EPA and made it
aware of the type of information that complainant's former supervisor was
providing. The agency stated that it asked the EPA to provide a general
letter of reference concerning complainant's past employment and that it
not allow the former supervisor to communicate with potential employers.
The agency noted that by letter dated March 27, 1996, the EPA contacted
complainant and provided him with a general letter of reference. Finally,
the agency determined that complainant failed to present evidence in
support of his claim that agency reference materials serve to blacklist
him from his field of employment throughout the government.
On appeal, complainant contends that under the agreement, he did not
need to proffer evidence in support of a request for reinstatement of
his complaints, but rather the agreement requires a full explanation.
Complainant maintains that the agency's disagreement with his explanation
does not supercede its obligation to reinstate his complaints upon his
written request. Complainant claims that the agency wrongfully furnished
biased reference materials to prospective employers in violation of
the settlement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of
the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b) provides that the agency
shall resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing.
If the agency has not responded to the complainant, in writing,
or if the complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt to
resolve the matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a
determination as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of
the settlement agreement or action. The complainant may file such an
appeal 35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations
of noncompliance, but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her
receipt of an agency's determination.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant matter, complainant claimed that the agency breached the
settlement agreement by wrongfully furnishing biased reference material
to prospective employers and that he has been blacklisted in his job
field throughout the government. Complainant claims that the agency
has not fulfilled the spirit and letter of the agreement. Initially, we
note that pursuant to the settlement agreement, the agency was obligated
to make the EPA aware of the type of information complainant's former
supervisor was providing, to suggest that the EPA discuss this matter
with the former supervisor, and to suggest that the EPA provide general
letters of reference for the complainant. The agency stated in its final
decision that in March 1996, it contacted the EPA and made it aware of the
type of information that complainant's former supervisor was providing.
The agency stated that it asked the EPA to provide a general letter
of reference concerning complainant's past employment and that it not
allow the former supervisor to communicate with potential employers.
Complainant has not argued or submitted evidence to establish that the
agency failed to perform any of these actions. We find that complainant
failed to establish that the agency did not fulfill its responsibilities
under the settlement agreement. Complainant's arguments concerning the
agency furnishing biased reference material to prospective employers and
that he has been blacklisted are not supported by any documentation or
other evidence. Therefore, we find that complainant has not established
that the agency acted in bad faith or otherwise violated the spirit and
letter of the agreement. Accordingly, we find that the agency's decision
finding that the settlement agreement had not been breached was proper
and 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
March 17, 2000
____________________________
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
1 On 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.