Darriel K. Caston, Complainant,v.Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 21, 2005
01a45342 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 21, 2005)

01a45342

03-21-2005

Darriel K. Caston, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.


Caston v. Department of the Interior

01A45342

03-21-05

.

Darriel K. Caston,

Complainant,

v.

Gale A. Norton,

Secretary,

Department of the Interior,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A45342

DECISION

Darriel K. Caston (complainant) filed an appeal from the July 7, 2004,

final decision of the Department of the Interior (agency), finding that

it did not breach the settlement agreement of December 18, 1997 (SA).

The appeal is timely filed (see 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)) and is accepted

in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

On June 22, 2004, complainant notified the agency that it had breached the

SA when certain information became available to his supervisors and was

leaked to the union and employees.<1> The agency denied complainant's

claim, stating that he had not exercised due diligence, that he failed

to comply with the time requirements in the Commission's regulations,

29 C.F.R. � 1614.504, and that the SA does not require destruction of

documents. The SA required, at Paragraph 4, that all negative materials

relating to complainant's EEO complaints would be sent to the ADR office

for "appropriate records holding in accordance with Agency regulations"

but that materials submitted to management about him by his co-workers

could be retained. Complainant asserted that documents should have

been destroyed. On appeal, complainant reasserted his arguments.

The Commission's regulations provide 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.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). 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. Department of Defense, 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. Department 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. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2,

1991). This rule states that if the writing is 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 this matter, complainant has not presented evidence to show that the

agency breached the SA. Further, we note that complainant stated that

he had recently reviewed his file and did not find negative documents.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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

___03-21-05_______________

Date

1Complainant also raised a new issue of hostile work environment, and

he is advised to contact an EEO counselor, should he wish to pursue

this claim. It is not appropriate for complainant to raise new claims

for the first time on appeal. See Hubbard v. Department of Homeland

Security, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40449 (April 22, 2004).