0120142739
09-10-2015
Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142739
Agency No. 146053001460
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 19, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Information Technology Specialist, GS-2210-13 Mechanicsburg Intern at the Agency's NAVAIR facility in China Lake, California.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination on the bases of disability (deafness, anxiety, and back pain), Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On April 21, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a "no fault" settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
For a three (3) month period, beginning no later than thirty (30) days after the final signature on this agreement, the Agency agrees to provide:
(1) Mentoring - 2 times/week (1 hour sessions) for a total of 16 sessions. This mentoring will be with Ed Balcer (or his designee if he is absent) and/or other available IT mentor services.
(2) Dedicated time - 2 days per week (generally Tuesday and Thursday) for Complainant to work on his DWIA on-line training requirements (2 courses)
(3) Training with 7.2 competency employees for DADMs/ITPR - specific schedule TBD dependent upon the 7.2 competency availability (approximately 2 days/week not to exceed 10 days total)
(4) SLI services for requirements/events for 1 and 3.
By letter to the Agency dated May 20, 2014, 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 him with the training and reasonable accommodations detailed in the settlement agreement.
In its June 19, 2014 FAD, the Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint, concluding that it was in compliance with all four provisions, and no breach occurred.
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, Complainant's allegations are outside the scope of the plain meaning of the settlement agreement. Complainant alleges that the Agency breached provisions one, two and three (1, 2, and 3) of the settlement agreement even though he was absent for much of the three month period it covered. The plain language of the settlement agreement only required the Agency to schedule weekly appointments with Complainant for training, which it did. The record indicates that the Agency made good faith efforts to work with Complainant to fully comply with these provisions. We find that the Agency's substantial compliance, in light of Complainant's absences, satisfies the settlement agreement and does not constitute breach. As for part four (4) of the settlement agreement, Complainant's dissatisfaction with the interpreter services, is also beyond the scope of the plain meaning of the settlement agreement. A review of the settlement agreement does not indicate specifications about the interpreter's specific technical vocabulary, nor does it contain requirements on the number of interpreters to provide. Therefore, the Agency satisfied part four of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainants Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 10, 2015
__________________
Date
2
0120142739
2
0120142739