Gloria S. Goree, Complainant,v.Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 18, 2012
0120121042 (E.E.O.C. May. 18, 2012)

0120121042

05-18-2012

Gloria S. Goree, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Gloria S. Goree,

Complainant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120121042

Agency No. 200H06142010100456

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated December 1, 2011, 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

Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On November 19, 2009, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(a) Management agrees to allow Complainant to remain on the evening tour (3 pm to 11:30 pm) under the supervision of the Assistant Technical Director of Respiratory Care. In the absence of the first line supervisor, the Complainant will report directly to the Technical Director of Respiratory Care. The changes will be effective November 19, 2009.

By letter to the Agency dated October 7, 2011, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on July 1, 2011 she was assigned a new supervisor with new guidelines and policy. Complainant primarily complained about when she had to switch her days off.

In its December 1, 2011 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency stated that Complainant's line of supervision changed when the tour of duty for the Assistant Technical Director changed, placing the two on different shifts. The Agency stated that the change happened because of staffing problems. The Agency noted that the issue with changing days occurred because Complainant had special circumstances that kept her from being supervised by a relative. Thus, Complainant could not trade her days off when Complainant's relative was the only supervisor.

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).

In the instant case, Complainant is still on the evening shift. The Commission notes that Complainant's supervisor changed tours because of staffing problems, something that could not be foreseen at the time the agreement was made 2 years previously.. The Commission has held that where an individual bargains for a position without any specific terms as to the length of service, it would be improper to interpret the reasonable intentions of the parties to include employment in that exact position ad infinitum. See Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997); Papac v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05910808 (Dec. 12, 1991); see also Parker v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Request No. 05910576 (Aug. 30, 1991). In addition, the Commission has held that there is no breach of a settlement agreement "where an individual has been assigned to a position pursuant to a settlement agreement, has held the position for a period of time, and then is excised out of the position because of agency downsizing that was not anticipated at the time of the agreement." Gish v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01950923 (Aug. 14, 1995). Similarly, the change in Complainant's supervisor was not a breach of the agreement.

The Commission further notes that the settlement agreement is silent as to any policy or rules about switching days. As such, the Commission cannot find that the Agency's action regarding a policy set so that Complainant would not be supervised by a relative was a breach of the agreement.

Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding it was not in breach of the agreement is AFFIRMED.

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), at 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 (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 (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

May 18, 2012

__________________

Date

2

0120121042

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120121042