01a52211
08-09-2005
Susan J. Linza, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Susan J. Linza v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A52211
August 9, 2005
.
Susan J. Linza,
Complainant,
v.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52211
Agency Nos. 98-4506; 99-5334; 2004-1196; 2004-2121
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated December 20, 2004, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the July 7, 2000 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:
This agreement, its terms, and all prior settlement discussions are
strictly confidential, and will be disclosed to no one absent prior
written authorization. Notwithstanding this confidentiality provision,
the parties agree and understand that the Agreement and matters
pertaining to it will only be disclosed by the Agency to individuals
responsible for implementing and processing its terms, and in strict
adherence to release of information laws that the Agency must follow.
By letter to the agency dated December 2, 2004, complainant alleged
that the agency violated the confidentiality clause of the settlement
agreement and also alleged that the agency processed her EEO complaint
inappropriately. In a decision dated December 20, 2004, the agency
found that it did not breach the settlement agreement.
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 alleged that the agency breached
the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement when one of
the agency's human resources relations specialists had knowledge and
possession of her settlement agreement. Complainant additionally
alleged that this agency official harassed her by wanting to clarify
issues and then determine if the issues warranted mediation. The agency
explained that this official is required to aid management in responding
to all aspects of Employee and Labor Relations matters. Further, this
agency official holds a position that requires her to have knowledge
and possession of any settlement agreement which serves to impact the
agency's role as it relates to Employee and Labor Relations matters.
We agree with the agency in finding that this agency official's job falls
within the purview of having the need to know. Therefore, we find that
the agency complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.<1>
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's decision finding no breach of the
settlement agreement.
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 9, 2005
_________________
Date
1 To the extent that complainant argues
on appeal that the agency inappropriately processed agency Complaint
No. 2004-0659-2005100060, complainant must raise that argument either
with an EEOC Administrative Judge or, after the agency takes final action
on agency Complaint No. 2004-0659-2005100060, with this Commission. See
EEOC Management Directive, Ch. 5 �IV(d) (November 11, 1999). The only
claim ripe for the Commission's review at this juncture is complainant's
claim concerning breach of the July 7, 2000 settlement agreement.