0120162521
10-21-2016
Amina W.,1 Complainant, v. Deborah Lee James, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Amina W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Deborah Lee James,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162521
Agency No. 8Z0J15013
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated July 19, 2016, 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
On April 27, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2c) In the event the Complainant believes that the Agency has violated a term or condition of this Agreement to notify in writing the JBSA Lackland AFB Texas, Equal Employment Manger, within 30 calendar days of the asserted violation and request that the terms of the Agreement are specifically implemented.
(3) The Agency agrees to change the [named Supervisor's] shift effective immediately for one year subject to management's best efforts to preserve the change. In an attempt to improve the work place environment, [the named Major] will schedule [the named Supervisor] for sensitivity, or comparable training, within 120 days from the effective date of this agreement.
Complainant learned that the training had not been completed within 120 days from the effective date of the Agreement and the training that was belatedly offered with not "sensitivity or diversity training." The Agency acknowledged that it did not schedule sensitivity training within 120 days of the effective date of the Agreement, but after it recognized "its own oversight in January of 2016," the named supervisor was scheduled for training and received training on January 26, 2016. The completion of the training was documented on AF Form 1271, Military Equal Opportunity Record of Assistance / Contact.
By letter to the Agency dated June 6, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. She requested that the Agency reinstate her complaint.
In its FAD, the Agency concluded that "a breach of the terms in the settlement agreement did not occur." The Agency reasoned that Complainant had an obligation to notify the Equal Opportunity Office within 30 calendar days of the asserted violation and she failed to notify the EO Office within the agreed upon amount of time.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant asserted that the Agency failed to tell her that the supervisor had not received sensitivity training. Because she believe that the Agency had complied, she did not contact the Agency until after she heard that the named supervisor did not get the agreed upon "sensitivity" training.
In response to the appeal, the Agency maintained that Complainant's breach claim should be rejected, because it was untimely. In addition, the Agency contends that it cured its oversight four months before Complainant asserted the breach claim.
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 that the Agreement is valid and binding on both parties.
In this case, the Agreement stated that the supervisor would be scheduled to attend sensitivity "or comparable" training within 120 days of the effective date of the Agreement. The Agency realized it had not scheduled the training and cured the breach before Complainant filed her breach claim. The record shows that the named supervisor was required to attend training. The Agreement did not identify the name of the training or require that the training be completed within 120 days. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, we do not find that Complainant has shown that the Agency breached the terms of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 tends 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), 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. The requests 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 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
October 21, 2016
__________________
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
0120162521
2
0120162521