01a50755
07-21-2006
Catherine B. Coley, Complainant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Catherine B. Coley,
Complainant,
v.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A50755
Agency Nos. 03-0055-SSA & 03-0461-SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated October 6, 2004, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 27, 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 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the agency
would waive its normal threshold requirements for the administration of
another Segment 1 test and would, within a reasonable amount of time,
administer the Segment 1 test to complainant. It further provided that
if complainant failed the test, she would be reassigned.
Complainant took the test over a number of days in August 2004, and
failed. Accordingly, she was reassigned from her position of Foreign
Benefit Technical Examiner, GS-7 to the position of Benefit Earnings
Technician, GS-7, effective September 5, 2004.
By letter to the agency dated September 1, 2004, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
she alleged that the Segment 1 test was unfair and given in bad faith.
She avers that due to system changes involving different computer screens
and software, she was unable to pass the test. She also claimed that the
agency was aware of these pending changes when the settlement was made,
and hence it was entered into by the agency in bad faith.
The agency counters that on June 16, 2004 complainant received the
same training as other employees on the system changes, which it
termed as redesigned screens. In addition, according to the agency,
it extended complainant's mentoring period to July 30, 2004, giving her
four additional weeks of mentoring working with the redesigned screens.
The record reveals that by August 3, 2004 several trainees were given the
Segment 1 test after the system changes were made, and all passed without
difficulty. The agency stated that an examination of complainant's test
results show that the system changes were unrelated to her failure.
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).
In the instant case, complainant avers that the settlement was breached
and entered into in bad faith because there were system changes that
caused her to fail the agreed upon test. We find, however, that there was
no bad faith and the settlement agreement was not breached. The record
shows that complainant was given a fair opportunity to learn the system
changes, and they were not the cause of her failure to pass the exam.
Accordingly, the FAD finding no breach is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 21, 2006
__________________
Date
2
01A50755
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
01A50755