0120111546
04-12-2012
Gabrielle R. Caddle, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (U.S. Mint), Agency.
Gabrielle R. Caddle,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(U.S. Mint),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111546
Agency No. MINT-08-0141-F
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the Agency dated December 23, 2010, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the December 2, 2009 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. For the reasons set forth, we VACATE
the Agency’s decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the Agency
agrees to:
1. Give Complainant a step increase from GS-14 step 8 to GS-14 step 9,
to be effective as of the date this agreement is signed by the parties.
2. Pay Complainant $4,500 within 45 days of the execution of this
Agreement.
3. Restore 75 hours of sick leave and 25 hours of annual leave to
Complainant within 45 days of the execution of this Agreement.
4. Pay a reasonable amount of attorney fees, in the amount of $15,000,
within 45 days of execution of this Agreement, to the law firm of Passman
and Kaplan, P.C.
5. To remove the March 2008 quarterly performance appraisal from
Complainant’s personnel file within 45 days of the execution of this
Agreement.
6. To approve leadership and management mission-related training,
including tuition, materials and fees, up to $5,000 per fiscal year,
pursuant to Mint Directive 410.C. Complainant will prepare and submit
an Individual Development Plan (IDP) to her current supervisor related
to obtaining competencies for her current position, and thereafter
competencies related to senior positions. Complainant and her supervisor
will agree on an IDP and attach a copy to this Agreement within 45 days
of the execution of this Agreement.
On January 13, 2010, Complainant submitted a request for training for a
management class on February 16, 2010. The class was part of the IDP
signed by management on February 1, 2010. The IDP included 5 classes
that totaled $4,312. The Agency contended that the IDP was forwarded
to the Agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office that same day.
On February 21, 2010, the Agency denied Complainant’s January 13,
2010 training request. Consequently, Complainant did not attend the
subject class or any of the classes on the IDP.
On February 24, 2010, Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor and alleged
that the Agency breached the settlement agreement.
The former Branch Chief of the Systems Maintenance and Development
Branch of the Information Technology Department (Branch Chief) stated
that the Treasury Learning Management System (TLMS) automatically denied
Complainant’s request on February 21, 2010. The Branch Chief said
that it was an oversight. The Branch Chief asserted that he was out on
extended leave when the IDP was approved and he forgot to approve the
funds when he returned to the office.
On February 26, 2010, the EEO Manager contacted Complainant and
Complainant’s supervisors to find a replacement class for Complainant
to attend.
By electronic mail message dated March 11, 2010, Complainant told the
EEO Manager, “I have contacted my legal representative to communicate
actions specifically regarding the breach.” By electronic mail messages
dated March 11, 2010 and March 18, 2010, Complainant’s attorney told
the General Counsel Office that she had advised Complainant to work with
the EEO Manager about finding a replacement class. By electronic mail
message dated March 28, 2010, Complainant informed the EEO Manager that
she no longer was represented by an attorney.
On March 18, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission
alleging that the Agency breached the December 2, 2009 settlement
agreement. On August 19, 2010, the Office of Federal Operations found
that Complainant had not complied with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504, dismissed
Complainant’s complaint as premature, and remanded the matter to the
Agency for processing. See Caddle v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120101717 (August 19, 2010).
On April 7, 2010, the EEO Manager contacted Complainant again to find
a mutually agreeable replacement class. The Agency asserted that
Complainant did not respond.
By electronic mail message dated April 20, 2010, the Division Chief
informed Complainant that 2 classes listed on the IDP were currently
available. The Division Chief also informed Complainant that time was
of the essence and encouraged Complainant to submit her training requests
in TLMS for management to approve.
By electronic mail message dated April 21, 2010, Complainant told the
Division Chief, “As I stated the previous two times, management has
breached the settlement agreement. It shall be dealt with accordingly.”
On December 23, 2010, the Agency issued a decision, concluding that
the settlement agreement had not been breached, and ordered specific
performance of the terms of the settlement agreement to remedy the
situation.
In a March 31, 2011 statement, the Branch Chief stated that he received an
electronic mail notification from the TLMS informing him that Complainant
had requested approval for a training class entitled “How to Supervise
People” scheduled for February 16, 2010. The Branch Chief said that
he did not receive any other notification from TLMS reminding him to
approve the training request or reminders from Complainant regarding
her training request. The Branch Chief asserted that he was out of
the office on annual leave between January 18, 2010 through January 31,
2010, and he returned to the office on February 1, 2010. The Branch
Chief argued that he believed that he had approved Complainant’s
training request, but had been advised that the TLMS records reflect
that no action was taken on the request. The Branch Chief stated that
he did not intentionally fail to act on the training request.
On appeal, Complainant asserted that the Agency failed to fulfill its
obligations under the settlement agreement and has therefore breached the
agreement. In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency argued that
it substantially complied with the December 2, 2009 settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 is not complaining that the Agency
breached provisions 1 through 5 of the December 2, 2009 settlement
agreement. Specifically, Complainant argued that the Agency breached
provision 6 of the December 2, 2009 settlement agreement when it failed to
approve her training request for a management class on February 16, 2010.
There is no indication in the record that Complainant has ever received
the requested management training. The Agency was obligated to provide
training for Complainant.
In a statement dated March 31, 2011, the former Branch Chief stated
that he believed that he had approved Complainant’s training request.
According to the Agency and unrebutted by Complainant, within two days
of notification of Complainant’s allegation of breach of settlement
for failure to approve her training request, the Agency’s EEO Manager
contacted Complainant and her supervisors to find a mutually agreeable
replacement training class for Complainant to attend as provided in
the settlement agreement. However, Complainant was uncooperative.
As maintained by the Agency, Complainant refused to discuss a replacement
course when the EEO Manager made another attempt to address the issue
with Complainant on April 7, 2010. The Agency stated that Complainant
also failed to register for any of the other four training classes
listed on her IDP, even after she received an electronic mail message
from her Division Chief on April 20, 2010, indicating that some of
these classes were then currently available. The Agency argued that,
instead of registering for the classes and utilizing her IDP, Complainant
responded that “[a]s I stated the previous two times on the same issue,
management breached the settlement agreement I have with the Department of
Treasury, United States Mint, and it shall be dealt with accordingly.”
Complainant alleged that the Agency is lying and breached the settlement
agreement. The Agency stated that they substantially complied
with the terms of the settlement agreement, and they made good faith
efforts to comply with the settlement agreement by attempting to find a
mutually-agreeable replacement class consistent with the purpose of the
settlement agreement. The Agency claimed that they took steps to enroll
Complainant in a management training class once informed of the situation.
The Agency cannot schedule Complainant for a management training class
if Complainant is not cooperative.
The Commission finds that the Agency should be given one more opportunity
to provide the training referenced in provision 6 of the December 2, 2009
settlement agreement. Complainant is nonetheless advised to cooperate
with the Agency in its effort to find a mutually agreeable leadership
and management mission-related training course. If Complainant fails
to cooperate, the Agency is relieved of its obligation to comply with
provision 6 of the December 2, 2009 settlement agreement.
Complainant may also be alleging subsequent acts of discrimination.
The Commission finds that the Agency properly instructed Complainant to
contact an EEO Counselor if she wished to pursue such claims. See 29�
�C.F.R. § 1614.504(c).
CONCLUSION
We VACATE the Agency’s final decision finding that no breach of
settlement agreement occurred. We REMAND the matter to the Agency for
further processing in accordance with this decision and the Order herein.
ORDER
Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency
shall contact Complainant and provide her an opportunity to schedule a
leadership and management mission-related training course. Complainant
will have 30 calendar days from the date that she is contacted by the
Agency in which to schedule her leadership and management mission-related
training course.
Within 120 calendar days from the date of this decision become final,
the Agency shall issue a new decision determining whether the Agency
breached provision 6 of the December 2, 2009 settlement agreement.
A copy of the Agency’s new decision must be sent to the Compliance
Officer referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the
Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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.
Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
April 12, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120111546
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111546