Arnettav.Courtney, Complainant, v. Michael O Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 10, 2008
0120083109 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 10, 2008)

0120083109

11-10-2008

Arnetta V. Courtney, Complainant, v. Michael O Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.


Arnetta V. Courtney,

Complainant,

v.

Michael O Leavitt,

Secretary,

Department of Health and Human Services,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083109

Agency No. HHSFDACBER02508

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 11, 2008, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of the March 10, 2008 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.

At the time of the alleged breach, complainant was a GS-13 Program Liaison

for Commission Corps Officers at the Food and Drug Administration's Center

for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). She had previously filed

an EEO complaint, which resulted in the settlement agreement at issue.

The March 10, 2008 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,

that:

Management agrees to allow complainant the opportunity to work with

the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Recruitment

Coordinator to incorporate Commission Corps at job fairs, recruitment

initiative.

By brief letter to the agency dated April 28, 2008, 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 by not allowing her to travel outside the local

area for recruitment of Commission Corps personnel, the agency is in

non-compliance with the settlement agreement. It appears, although not

altogether clear, that complainant's request to go on a recruitment trip

on official travel to San Diego, California was denied.

In its June 11, 2008 FAD, the agency found no breach had occurred and

supported its finding with statements from several management officials.

The Program Service Branch Chief, who is complainant's immediate

supervisor, stated that complainant had the opportunity to participate

in several Commission Corps job fairs and recruitment initiatives in the

Washington Metro area, including: John Hopkins University (April 16,

2008), Bio Space Career Fair (April 17, 2008), Georgetown University

(April 9, 2008), and Blood Products Advisory Committee meeting (May

1-2, 2008). The Branch Chief also indicated that complainant stated

no interest in the recruitment initiative for Memphis, TN (May 15-17,

2008), or Boston, MA (June 1-5, 2008).

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).

On appeal, complainant has submitted no further explanation of her breach

claim. She also has not contested the facts as presented by the agency in

its FAD. Based on the record as presented by the agency, the Commission

finds that complainant has not shown that the agency has breached the

settlement agreement provision at issue. The agreement was signed in

March 2008, and the record indicates that complainant participated in

a number of job fairs and other recruitment activities in April and May

2008, as well as apparently indicating no interest in participating in

recruitment activities in Memphis and Boston in May-June 2008. The plain

language of the agreement provides that complainant will be permitted to

work with the recruiter at job fairs and other recruitment activities.

The agency has complied with this provision. Nowhere does it state that

complainant is entitled to attend any particular event, or that she is

entitled to attend events that require official travel.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no settlement breach

is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 (S0408)

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 (Z0408)

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

November 10, 2008

__________________

Date

2

0120083109

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120083109