0120112003
08-25-2011
Charles Martinsen, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Charles Martinsen,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112003
Agency Nos. IRS-07-0054, IRS-07-0792, IRS-07-1012, and IRS-08-1012
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal on October 23, 2008 with this Commission from
a Final Decision by the Agency dated October 14, 2008, finding that it
was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which
the parties entered. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s Final Decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as an Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist at the Agency’s Small
Business, Self Employed (SBSE) Division, Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Diversity in New Carrolton, Maryland. Complainant
contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On March 28, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The Settlement Agreement provided,
in pertinent part, that:
(d) In 2008, the Complainant will be approved to attend the EEO
Excel Conference, the EEOC Technical Assistance Seminar, USDA Briefing
Techniques, and the Federally Employed Women Conference. . . . .
By letter to the Agency dated September 11, 2008, Complainant alleged that
the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the Agency specifically implement its terms. Complainant’s September
11, 2008 Letter of Breach, at 1; Record on Appeal (ROA) at 895 et seq.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to reimburse
his costs of $1,680.63 within a reasonable time for attending the EXCEL
conference in 2008. Complainant noted that he was required to pay his
government credit card in a timely fashion which became due while the
Agency’s reimbursement to him is still pending. Complainant’s Notice
of Appeal, October 20, 2008 at 1.
In its October 14, 2008 Decision, the Agency concluded Complainant’s
travel voucher for his attendance at the 2008 EXCEL conference was paid
on September 23, 2008. Agency’s Final Decision (Ag Decision) October
14, 2008 at 2.
ANALYSIS and FINDINGS
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).
We find no dispute that Complainant’s travel vouchers for the 2008
EXCEL conference were ultimately paid by the Agency in September 2008.
Complainant states that payment was unreasonably delayed. We find
that with respect to reimbursing Complainant for his travel voucher
for this conference, the delay was not excessive and that the Agency
substantially complied with this provision regarding those expenses
($1,680.63) for which Complainant sought reimbursement. See Electronic
Mail Message from Director, SB/SE EEO and Diversity; October 7, 2008;
ROA at 865 of 904. We therefore concur with the Agency that no breach
of the Settlement Agreement has occurred as alleged in Complainant’s
letter of September 11, 2008.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s Final Decision, dated October 14, 2008, finding
that no breach of the Settlement Agreement occurred as alleged.
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (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
August 25, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120112003
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120112003