0120093237
05-06-2011
Candace Williams, Complainant, v. Robert M. Gates, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency.
Candace Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Robert M. Gates,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Contract Management Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120093237
Agency No. YP-07-0071-DCMA
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission when the Agency failed to
issue Complainant a letter of determination regarding her claim of breach
of the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered.
The Commission accepts Complainant's appeal. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as
a EEO Manager at the Agency's facility in Alexandria, Virginia. Believing
that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant
contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On January 23, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that Complainant would take additional training to
continue to enhance/develop her leadership and supervisory skills as
follows:
(1) Appropriate In-house [Agency] supervisory skills training.
(2) Appropriate in-house refresher training in supervisory and
leadership skills.
(3) Appropriate external leadership training courses, subject to
the availability of funds as follows:
a. USDA Graduate School Course Washington Executive Seminar that is being
held In Washington, D.C. on February 25 - March 7, 2008, and June 16-27,
2008 (Complainant is scheduled to attend).
b. USDA Graduate School Course "Managing for Results" that is being
held in Washington. D.C., on April 7-9, 2008 (Complainant is scheduled
to attend), and June 9-11, 2008.
c. USDA Graduate School Course "Executive Potential Program," (EP Program)
a 12-Month Developmental Program. Complainant's manager (Manager)
agrees that Complainant on may take this course at some point in the
future after she has completed the courses noted above (1,2, and 3(a)
and (b)) and leadership skills enhancement training and when the Manager
feels that Complainant has reached a leadership and supervisory skill
level acceptable to the Manager.
The record indicated that Complainant was to report to the EP Program for
FY 2008. However, Complainant's participation was deferred by the Manager
due to staff shortages and mission requirements. Therefore, Complainant
was to participate in the EP Program in FY 2009. By email dated June
3, 2009, Complainant was informed by the Director that her enrollment
was deferred. The Director noted that based on staff shortages, she
could not allow Complainant at this time and asked that her attendance
in the EP Program be deferred to a later date. Complainant responded
to the Director requesting that she reconsider her decision. By letter
dated June 8, 2009, the Director informed Complainant that it was her
final decision to defer Complainant's participation in the EP Program
based on the workload and diminishing staff.
By letter to the Agency dated June 9, 2009, 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 the Agency failed to provide her with the EP Program.
Complainant indicated that she was to begin the EP Program; however the
Director deferred her enrollment. As such, Complainant requested that
the Agency allow her to begin the EP Program.
The record showed that Complainant contacted management about resolving
the matter. However, following 35 days of receipt of Complainant's claim
of breach, the Agency failed to issue Complainant a determination on
her claim of breach. Therefore, Complainant filed her appeal with the
Commission. We note that the Agency failed to respond to Complainant's
appeal.
ANALYSIS
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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, we find that, although the Agency failed to
reply to Complainant's appeal, Complainant has provided sufficient
information and evidence for the Commission to render a decision.
Complainant has shown that she was to participate in the EP Program in FY
2008 and FY 2009. However, both times, Complainant's participation was
deferred by management, first by the Manager and then by the Director.
Complainant noted on appeal that she has since been denied participation
in the EP Program in FY 2010 and FY 2011, by her current supervisors.
Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency breached the settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement provided for Complainant to be
sent to the EP Program when "at some point in the future after she has
completed the courses noted above (1,2, and 3(a) and (b)) and leadership
skills enhancement training and when the Manager feels that Complainant
has reached a leadership and supervisory skill level acceptable to the
Manager." The letter from the Director indicated that the Agency was
only required to "in the future" provide Complainant with the training.
However, the settlement agreement specified the future date was based on
Complainant's completion of the other courses listed in the agreement
and the Manager's finding that Complainant reached an acceptable level
with respect to leadership and supervisory skills. The record showed that
Complainant's deferment was based on staff shortages and not Complainant's
leadership and supervisory skills. As such, we find that the Agency's
continued deferment of Complainant's participation in the EP Program
constituted a breach of the settlement agreement.
Where this Commission finds that a settlement agreement has been breached,
the only two remedies available are specific performance of the terms
of the agreement or reinstatement of the underlying EEO complaint at the
point processing ceased 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). We note that Complainant
asked that the Agency implement the term of the settlement agreement.
As such, we shall order the Agency implement the terms of the settlement
agreement and to provide Complainant with the EP Program training.
CONCLUSION
Upon review of the record, the Commission VACATES the Agency's decision in
FAD 2. In addition, we REVERSE FAD 1 finding no breach of the settlement
agreement and REMANDS the matter in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
Within 30 calendar days, the Agency is ordered to provide Complainant
with the authorization to attend the USDA Graduate School Course
"Executive Potential Program." The Agency shall provide evidence that
it has provided Complainant with the training within 15 calendar days
of the training. The Agency shall send such evidence to the Compliance
Officer referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation,
and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil
Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with the
Court 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
May 6, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120093237
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
6
0120093237