Darrie L. Walton, Complainant,v.Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 20, 2001
01997258_r (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2001)

01997258_r

06-20-2001

Darrie L. Walton, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Darrie L. Walton v. Department of Agriculture

01997258

June 20, 2001

.

Darrie L. Walton,

Complainant,

v.

Ann M. Veneman,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01997258

Agency No. 940110

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision by the agency dated September 10, 1999 dismissing complainant's

breach of settlement claim and finding that it lacked jurisdiction

over the May 13, 1993 settlement agreement into which the parties<1>

entered. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,

that it �constitutes a settlement agreement of any and all disputes,

EEO complaints, grievances, and issues between [complainant] and [the

agency],� and that complainant will be reassigned to the Management

Administrative Staff and �trained in the tasks of the position within

the first 30 days.�

On October 30, 1997, complainant contacted an EEO Counselor and alleged,

along with other matters, that the agency was in breach of the settlement

agreement, a reiteration of a claim she first made to the EEO office

in 1994. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency denied her

training outlined in the May 13, 1993 agreement.

After review of the record in the instant case, we find that the May 13,

1993 settlement agreement was a grievance settlement reached under

the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement. Although the agreement

settled �all disputes, EEO complaints, grievances, and issues� between

the parties, there is no evidence in the record that complainant

had any formal or informal EEO complaints pending at the time of the

agreement, or that any issues settled in the agreement were other than

those related to complainant's grievance issues. The Commission has

held that a complainant may not use the EEO process to obtain compliance

with a grievance settlement. See Quezada v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05930175 (August 12, 1993). The Commission finds that

complainant has here attempted to use the EEO process to obtain compliance

with a grievance agreement. Such a noncompliance claim is outside the

purview of the EEO process. Therefore, we find that complainant's breach

of settlement claim was properly dismissed.

Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss complainant's claim is

hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)

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 (Z1199)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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

June 20, 2001

__________________

Date

1The settlement agreement was reached by

complainant and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), a sub-agency

of the Department of Agriculture. As a result of a post-agreement

reorganization, FmHA is now known as �Rural Development.�