01A10883_r
03-08-2002
Wanda G. Stephens, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Commissary Agency) Agency.
Wanda G. Stephens v. Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency)
01A10883
March 8, 2002
.
Wanda G. Stephens,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Commissary Agency)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10883
Agency No. EU-99-003
DECISION
Complainant appealed the agency's decision that denied her claim that the
settlement agreement entered into between the parties had been breached.
On October 25, 1999, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint wherein
she claimed that she had been discriminated against in reprisal for her
previous EEO activity when she was not selected for a full-time position
at the Mannheim, Germany Commissary. The record reveals that on October
11, 2000, complainant and the agency entered into a settlement agreement
regarding the complaint. The settlement provided, in pertinent part,
that in exchange for complainant voluntarily withdrawing her complaint,
the agency agreed as follows:
a. To pay a lump sum of $4,200.00 in the settlement of the above case.
The check will be made out to the Complainant's Attorney....
b. To initiate the changes in paragraph 3a above without delay.
The settlement provides, in pertinent part, that in exchange for the
agency's actions, complainant agreed as follows:
To voluntarily enter into this agreement and acknowledge that they have
had the opportunity to consult and review this agreement with an attorney
or representative of choice.
By letter dated November 8, 2000, complainant informed the agency that
she was dissatisfied with the settlement agreement. According to
complainant, the agency has not taken care of the appropriate paperwork
and the monetary component of the settlement was not fair. Complainant
requested a reinstatement of her complaint.
In a decision dated November 20, 2000, the agency determined that
payment of $4,200.00 in attorney's fees was made on October 25, 2000.
The agency noted that complainant signed the settlement agreement and that
she was represented by an attorney during settlement negotiations. In a
subsequent agency decision dated November 29, 2000, the agency determined
that it had not breached the settlement agreement. The agency reiterated
that it had paid complainant's attorney $4,200.00 on October 25, 2000.
The agency noted that complainant acknowledged in the settlement that
she had voluntarily entered into the agreement and was provided the
opportunity to consult with her attorney concerning the settlement.
The agency denied complainant's request that her complaint be reinstated.
On appeal, complainant argues that the agency has acted in bad faith
by not fulfilling its obligation on a matter that was not included in
the settlement agreement. According to complainant, agency officials
stated that they would take care of her concerns about her annual leave,
sick leave, and workers' compensation and that it was not necessary to
include their obligations in 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.
If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a settlement agreement or final action, the complainant
shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of
the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the
complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing
ceased.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
With regard to the merits of complainant's allegation of breach,
we find that complainant has not established that a breach occurred.
Complainant maintains that the agency acted in bad faith by not addressing
her concerns with regard to her annual leave, sick leave, and workers'
compensation. Complainant argues that agency officials assured her they
these matters would be taken care of and that it was not necessary to
include their obligations in the written settlement agreement. We find
that the terms of the settlement agreement do not require that the
agency address complainant's annual leave, sick leave, and workers'
compensation. Complainant should have insisted that these matters be
reduced to writing in the settlement agreement if she wanted the agency
to be bound by certain obligations. Complainant also can not rescind
the settlement on the grounds that she now believes that the monetary
remedy was insufficient. We note that complainant was represented by
an attorney. Therefore, there does not appear to be cause to believe
that the agency took unfair advantage of complainant in some respect.
Complainant does not contest the agency's assertion that $4,200.00 was
paid to her attorney pursuant to the settlement agreement. We find that
the agency did not breach the settlement agreement and complainant is not
entitled to reinstatement of her complaint. Accordingly, the agency's
decision that it did not breach the settlement agreement was proper and
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
March 8, 2002
__________________
Date