0120073071
08-30-2007
Hazel J. Jackson, Complainant, v. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Hazel J. Jackson,
Complainant,
v.
Mary E. Peters,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120073071
Agency No. 200620147FAA01
DECISION
JURISDICTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision1 (FAD) by the agency dated May 24, 2007, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the April 2, 2007 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:
(1) Agency agrees to enclose Complainant's current work station so
as to create an office in or about what is now the facility's reception
area. Complainant understands that she will share the enclosed office
with another individual, the Air Traffic Secretary.
By letter to the agency dated May 2, 2007, 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 instead of having her share her office with the Air Traffic
Secretary, the agency enclosed her office in a 9 by 8 foot area containing
only herself. Complainant further contends that a coworker mocks her
"little space."
In its May 24, 2007 FAD, the agency concluded that the clause concerning
the sharing of the workspace "was meant solely to notify [complainant]
that it may be necessary for you to share either the enclosed space or
the reception area space" but that such a space-sharing arrangement was
no longer necessary.
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, we find no breach of the agreement. Specifically
we find that the clause referring to the sharing of the office space
was merely a notice to complainant that she might have to share the
enclosed space. It was not a bargained-for term of the agreement that
bound the agency. We note in this regard that the language of the
agreement does not state that the agency agreed to provide complainant
with a shared office. Furthermore, complainant's statements on appeal
indicate that the essence of her complaint is that the 9 by 8 foot space
is too small and that a coworker mocks her "little space." The size of
the new workspace, however, was not included as a term of the agreement
and therefore the agency did not breach the agreement when it provided
complainant with a 9 by 8 foot workspace. We therefore affirm the FAD.
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
August 30, 2007
__________________
Date
1 The Commission views the agency's May 24, 2007 electronic message
from the agency's supervisory attorney to complainant as constituting
the agency's FAD on this matter.
??
??
??
??
2
0120073071
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120073071