01A15266_r
01-17-2002
Vernon R. Williams, Sr., Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Vernon R. Williams, Sr. v. Department of the Interior
01A15266
January 17, 2002
.
Vernon R. Williams, Sr.,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A15266
Agency No. LLM-01-045
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a decision
by the agency dated August 9, 2001, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of the October 27, 1998 settlement agreement into which
the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(A) The [agency] agrees:
To give [complainant] a two (2) step increase from WL-2604-11/3 to
WL-2604-11/5, effective September 27, 1998. Payment will commence
approximately ninety (90) days after this agreement is signed.
To provide [complainant] with a maximum of 80 hours supervisory training
within two years from the date of this agreement.
To provide [complainant] with a lump sum payment of three hundred
dollars ($300.00).
[Complainant] will remain (as long as he is an employee in BLM-AK,
Alaska Fire Service and performance/conduct remains at an acceptable
level) at WL-2604-11/5 level unless otherwise promoted.
By letter to the agency dated May 21, 2001, complainant alleged
that the agency breached the settlement agreement when it changed
the position description for the WL-2604-11 position to the duties
for a WG-2604 position. Specifically, complainant stated that he was
informed on April 6, 2001, that all responsibilities and authority of
the WL-2604-11 position were removed. In addition, complainant claimed
the agency violated the agreement by providing only forty-eight hours
of supervisory training to date rather than the maximum eighty hours
stated in the agreement.
In its August 9, 2001 decision, the agency concluded that it did not
breach the October 27, 1998 agreement. The agency stated that complainant
was awarded a two (2) step within-grade increase from a WL-2604/3 to
a WL-2604-11/5, effective September 27, 1998. The agency claimed that
complainant has been provided 120 hours of supervisory training which
is forty hours more than stated in the agreement. The agency identifies
five supervisory classes allegedly taken by complainant between June 1999
and March 2000 totaling 120 hours. The agency stated that complainant
was paid $300.00 on December 3, 1998. Further, the agency stated
that complainant currently works as an Electronics Mechanic Leader,
WL-2604-11/5 Alaska Fire Service. The agency advised complainant that
if he believed the change of duties on April 6, 2001 constituted a new
allegation of discrimination, he should contact an EEO Counselor to
pursue a complaint.
The record contains a Standard Form 50-B indicating that complainant was
given a two (2) step increase from WL-2604-11/3 to WL-2604-11/5, effective
September 27, 1998. The record contains a list entitled �Supervisory
Training Taken By Complainant� which lists: five courses,<1> the dates
of the courses, and the number of hours of each course. The record
contains a second list entitled �Training History for Complainant,�
which lists training courses from Fiscal Year 96 to Fiscal Year 01,
including the five named courses identified by the agency.
On appeal, complainant acknowledges that he received the two (2)
step increase from WL2604-11/3 to WL-2602-11/5. With regard to
the training schedule, however, complainant states that he was not
provided 120 hours of supervisory training as stated by the agency.
Complainant acknowledges that he attended �Basics of Supervision� on
June 21, 1999, an eight-hour course. Complainant also states that he
attended a sixteen hour course entitled �How to be a More Effective Team
Leader� on November 15-16, 1999; however, he contests whether this was
a supervisory course. Complainant states that he attended a forty hour
course entitled �Communications for Unit Leader� on April 2000; however,
he states this is not a supervisory course. Complainant states that he
attended a sixteen hour session February 15-16, 2000, entitled �Conflict
Resolution/Mediation.� Complainant states that this session was used to
resolve a conflict between two agency employees. Finally, complainant
states that he did not attend a forty hour class entitled �Supervisory
Refresher� from March 20-24, 2000. Complainant states that his request
to attend the �Supervisory Refresher� class was denied.
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 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 present case, the Commission finds that the agency properly
determined that it was in compliance with the October 27, 1998 settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement stated that the agency would provide
complainant with a maximum of eighty hours supervisory training within
two years from the date of the agreement. The agreement did not specify
the exact number of hours of supervisory training that complainant was to
receive, rather it set a maximum at eighty hours. Complainant admits
that he did attend some supervisory training in satisfaction of the
agreement. Thus, we find that the agency complied with the training
provision of the agreement.
Further, we note that to the extent that complainant is claiming that the
change of duties on April 6, 2001 was discriminatory, this claim would
constitute a subsequent act of discrimination, and not a breach claim.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). Thus, we find that the agency properly
advised complainant that if he wishes to raise this claim and has not
already done so, he should contact an EEO Counselor.
Accordingly, the agency's decision that it did not breach the agreement
is AFFIRMED.
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
January 17, 2002
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1(1) �Basics of Supervision�; (2) �How to be a More Effective Team
Leader�; (3) �S-358 Communications for Unit Leader�; (4) �Conflict
Resolution/Mediation for Managers/Supervisors�; and (5) �Supervisory
Refresher.�