01974262
10-29-1998
Joe B. Daniel, Appellant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Joe B. Daniel v. Department of the Interior
01974262
October 29, 1998
Joe B. Daniel, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01974262
)
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
_________________________________)
DECISION
Appellant filed the instant appeal on April 17, 1995 alleging that the
agency had breached two settlement agreements between the parties.
Appellant and the agency entered into a settlement agreement on June 1,
1992 (settling an informal complaint of discrimination filed on March 24,
1992) and entered into a separate settlement agreement on December 6, 1993
(settling a formal complaint dated February 2, 1993). In the June 1,
1992 agreement the agency agreed to pay appellant a specified amount of
money and to not retaliate against appellant. In the December 6, 1993
agreement the agency agreed to transfer appellant to a new supervisor,
remove a letter of reprimand, and change a performance evaluation.
By letter dated December 1, 1994 appellant informed the agency that
the agency had breached both settlement agreements by committing acts
of reprisal. Appellant argued that both settlement agreements forbid
reprisal against appellant and that since June 1, 1992 appellant had
filed various complaints for reprisal. By letter dated December 30,
1994 the agency informed appellant that it was referring appellant's
request to reopen the settled matters to the Departmental Office for Equal
Opportunity for a decision. In the December 30, 1994 letter the agency
stated that it was recommending that appellant's request be denied.
By letter dated April 17, 1995 appellant filed the instant appeal in
which he claimed that he had not received any decision on his settlement
breach allegations. There is no indication in the record that the agency
has ever issued a decision on appellant's breach allegations.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties shall be
binding on both parties. If the complainant believes that the agency
has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, then the
complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the alleged noncompliance
"within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of
the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(a). The complainant
may request that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically
implemented or request that the complaint be reinstated for further
processing from the point processing ceased. Id.
Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency
and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not
some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th Cir. 1938).
In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is a breach, the
Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the parties and
will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing Hyon v.
United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2, 1991)).
This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on
its face, then its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the
instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. Id.
(citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering Service, 730 F.2d 377
(5th Cir. 1984)).
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(c) provides that allegations that
subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall
be processed as separate complaints under �1614.106 rather than as
breach allegations. Appellant's allegations that the agreement was
breached by acts of reprisal are allegations that subsequent acts of
discrimination violated the settlement agreement. Such allegations should
be processed as a separate complaint under �1614.106 rather than as a
breach allegation. Appellant has asserted that he has already filed such
separate complaints. Appellant has not claimed that any provision in the
agreement, other than the prohibition against retaliation, was breached.
Therefore, the Commission finds that appellant has failed to show that
the agency breached either settlement agreement.
The Commission finds that appellant has failed to show that the June 1,
1992 settlement agreement or the December 6, 1993 settlement agreement
were breached by the agency.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
October 29, 1998
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations