0120150604
05-22-2015
Complainant, v. Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Sally Jewell,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150604
Agency No. DOI-OS-14-0031
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated November 24, 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 was employed as a Human Resources Specialist at the Agency's Office of the Secretary, Interior Business in Washington, DC.
On April 4, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO complaint filed on March 25, 2014. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(17) Complainant shall retire effective May 3, 2014. Complainant is responsible for completing all paperwork associated with her retirement;
(18) within fifteen (15) days of Complainant's retirement or resignation as described in paragraph 17, Interior Business Center shall pay to Complainant a lump sum of $50,000 by Electronic Fund Transfer to her salary deposit account on record with the interior Business Center. A Form 1099 will be issued to the Complainant for this lump sum payment in accordance with the standard annual 1099 procedures utilized by IBC's Financial Management Directorate;
(13) This document constitutes the final and complete statement of the terms contained in the Settlement Agreement and agreed to by the parties. There are no other terms expressed; and
(6) Age Discrimination in Employment Act Statement. Pursuant to and consistent with 29 U.S.C. � 626, Complainant acknowledges and agrees that she has read this Settlement Agreement and fully understands its terms and conditions, and has entered into Settlement Agreement knowingly and voluntarily and of her own free will. Complainant further acknowledges that she has been given a reasonable period of time (seven days) to consider this Settlement Agreement. ...Complainant acknowledges, understands, agree that if she signs this Settlement Agreement within seven (7) days of her receipt of the Settlement Agreement, her signature on this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to a 7-day reconsideration period. Complainant also acknowledges that this Settlement Agreement constitutes written advice to consult with an attorney before signing this Settlement Agreement. By signing this Settlement Agreement, Complainant understands that she is not waiving any rights or claims under the ADEA that may arise after the date she signs this Settlement Agreement.
On August 26, 2014, Complainant received a notice from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informing Complainant that her final monthly annuity amount was $300 less than the estimate that Complainant had been provided by the Agency. OPM stated that the estimate provided by the Agency was calculated incorrectly, because it gave Complainant full-time credit for part-time service for a four-year period.
By letter to the Agency dated September 18, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency reinstate her complaint. Complainant did not identify a specific provision that had been breached. Rather, Complainant stated that "the terms under which I agreed to retire and therefore the construct of the signed Settlement Agreement itself are based on markedly erroneous information provided to me by the Agency, which [Complainant] believe[s] renders the Agreement invalid." She also stated that she agreed to settle her complaint "based upon an agency-provided estimated annuity that [she] could live on." Complainant attached the letter from the OPM that she said showed that the annuity estimate provided to her did not include some part-time service that Complainant had for a four-year period from 1986 to 1990.
Complainant does not dispute that she had part-time employment for the four year period which resulted in a lower annuity amount. Complainant also acknowledged that the Agency provided her with a written proposal for settlement on March 28, 2014. Complainant felt pressured to sign the Agreement and concedes that she "did not spend any time reviewing the retirement forms or before signing them." She states that the Agreement was "tainted by erroneous retirement estimate information provided to her by the Agency" and that she is not at fault for not having identified the extreme inaccuracy of the annuity estimate on her own.
The Agency acknowledged receipt of her breach claims, but the Agency did not respond to Complainant within 35 days of being sent the allegations of noncompliance.
By letter dated November 22, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal to this Commission. In that appeal, Complainant added a new breach claim. She maintains that she was denied her rights under the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act because she was given seven days to review the document and not informed that she could reconsider her signature.
In its November 18, 2014 Decision on Compliance, the Agency concluded that there was no breach of the Settlement Agreement. The Agency reasoned that the Agreement did not reference a specific annuity amount and the estimate of the annuity was based on the work history information which Complainant certified was correct. The Agency concluded that "because [the Agency] complied with each term, it did not breach the parties' settlement agreement."
In addition, the Agency addressed Complainant's new claim. She alleges that this lifetime annuity discrepancy violates her rights under the ADEA. The Agency's decision advised Complainant that she should contact an EEO Counselor if she wanted to pursue the claim as a new complaint.
Complainant appeals from the Agency's decision.
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).
We find the Agreement is valid and binding. We also find the terms of the Agreement are clear and unambiguous.
In the instant case, the Agency agreed to provide Complainant with a lump sum payment. The only sum certain was the $50,000.00 lump sum payment. The Agreement did not specify a monthly retirement annuity amount, nor did it refer to an estimate of a retirement annuity amount. The record documents that the Agency provided Complainant with all of the benefits to which she was entitled under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. We also find that the terms of the Agreement provided sufficient notice of Complainant's rights, including preserving her rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act.
Therefore, we find that Complainant did not show that the Agency breached the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's finding of compliance.
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 tends 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
May 22, 2015
__________________
Date
2
0120150604
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120150604