0120142326
10-10-2014
Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142326
Agency No. 130025302704
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision by the Agency dated June 11, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of an April 15, 2014 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue Complainant worked as an Administrative/Technical Specialist at the Agency's Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division in Keyport, Washington. Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
On April 15, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The April 15, 2014 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(2) NUWC Keyport agrees to:
(a) Provide Complainant with office space in Building 1003, Room 225 until at least October 31, 2013.1
(b) Prior to his separation from Government Service, Complainant will deliver the documentation of NUWC Keyport's Industrial Historic District to DH.
By letter and email to the Agency dated May 30, 2014, Complainant alleged breach and requested that the Agency specifically implement the terms of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached provision 2(a). Complainant alleges that he was engaged in settlement discussions reflecting an expectation to be "reassigned" from a named supervisor's team (Supervisor JB) to another team, and not just physically moved into another office. Complainant asserts that he assumed he was agreeing to be moved out of Supervisor JB's work group, and believed that that the physical move also meant getting a new supervisor. Complainant stated that the "move" was not the satisfactory outcome he expected. Complainant also alleges that he had a "side agreement" with a member of the Agency's legal team, RS, indicating that he would receive monetary compensation of $50,000 upon retirement as a result of the settlement.
In its June 11, 2014 letter of determination, the Agency found no breach of provision 2. The Agency found that it had met the requirements of the settlement agreement as drafted. The Agency noted that the settlement agreement did not specifically state that Complainant's supervisor would change when he was moved into another office, but only that Complainant himself would be moved. The Agency stated that it indeed had provided Complainant with office space in Building 1003, Room 225, as agreed. The Agency stated that Part 2(b) was also completed, as Complainant had delivered the specified report to his second line supervisor, DH, over his first line supervisor, JB, as agreed.
The instant appeal followed.
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, the Agency has established that it is in compliance with the terms of the April 15, 2014 settlement agreement. Here, the Agency provided Complainant with the agreed upon office space and under the special circumstances, allowed Complainant to directly deliver the documentation of NUWC Keyport's Industrial Historic District Report ("Report") to DH as a one-time matter. Additionally, there was nothing in the Agreement to state that Complainant's physical move meant that he would be transferred to another team. There were no other promises made by the Agency concerning Complainant's supervisory chain.
Furthermore, the Agency has provided sworn statements from RS stating that it was made clear to Complainant that JB would remain his first line supervisor, and that there were no representations or promises made to a move Complainant to another supervisor. RS also stated that it was made clear to Complainant that the Agreement did not include any monetary payment of any kind. RS declared that he "...never had any discussions with [Complainant] regarding a "side deal," or any discussions that the Agreement would be "revisited" or "revised" at a later date." The record indicates that a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) had been discussed at various times during mediation and settlement discussions, but that it was not pursued as Complainant made it clear that he was not interested in settling the claim with a VSIP.
Accordingly, the Agency's finding of no breach of the April 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement is AFFIRMED.
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
October 10, 2014
__________________
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 the following recipients on the date below:
__________________
Date
______________________________
Compliance and Control Division
ARP Companion Case Checklist
Complainant Agency Appeal/Request/Petition No. Henry A. Murkins NAVY 0120142326
OPEN CASES
Appeal No. IMS Status Related (Yes/No) Actions Taken N/A
CLOSED CASES
Appeal No. IMS Status Related (Yes/No) Actions Taken N/A
CLASS ACTION CASES
Appeal No. IMS Status Related (Yes/No) Actions Taken N/A
Fang, Han October 7, 2014
Attorney Date
1 On appeal, the Agency acknowledges that the settlement agreement inadvertently makes reference to "October 31, 2013," instead of to "October 31, 2014."
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120142326
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120142326
5
0120142326