David Wicks, Complainant,v.Norman E. D'Amours, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 14, 1999
01994057 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 14, 1999)

01994057

12-14-1999

David Wicks, Complainant, v. Norman E. D'Amours, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, Agency.


David Wicks, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01994057

) Agency No. 95-03

Norman E. D'Amours, )

Chairman, )

National Credit Union Administration, )

Agency. )

__________________________________ )

DECISION

Complainant filed the instant appeal from the agency's March 24, 1999

decision finding that the agency did not breach the settlement agreement

entered into by the parties on July 26, 1995. <1>

The settlement agreement provided that: complainant's performance

appraisal for the year ending December 31, 1994 would be changed to

�Fully Successful�; complainant would be granted a merit pay adjustment;

and the agency would restore 85 hours of annual leave and 56 hours of

sick leave to complainant. The agreement also provided:

[The agency] agrees that it will acquire necessary equipment or devices to

assist [complainant] in operating a computer with one hand. The equipment

or devices will be offered to [complainant] as an accommodation for his

physical disability.

[The agency] agrees that after procurement of the equipment or devices

referenced in Term C of this agreement, [complainant] will be given

additional time to perform his normal duties and responsibilities.

After [complainant] has used the equipment or devices for six months,

[the agency] will review the matter and, within thirty calendar days,

determine whether additional accommodations are necessary.

By letter dated August 27, 1998 complainant informed the agency that it

had breached the settlement agreement. The agency found in the March 24,

1999 determination that it had complied with the settlement agreement.

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be

codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a)) provides

that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the

parties shall be binding on both parties. If the complainant believes

that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement

agreement, then the complainant shall notify the EEO Director of the

alleged noncompliance "within 30 days of when the complainant knew

or should have known of the alleged noncompliance." 29 C.F.R. �

1614.504(a). The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement

agreement be specifically implemented or request that the complaint be

reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. Id.

Settlement agreements are contracts between the appellant and the agency

and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not

some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795

(Aug. 23, 1990); In re Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co., 94 F.2d 296 (7th

Cir. 1938). In reviewing settlement agreements to determine if there is

a breach, the Commission is often required to ascertain the intent of the

parties and will generally rely on the plain meaning rule. Wong v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05931097 (Apr. 29, 1994) (citing

Hyon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (Dec. 2,

1991)). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and

unambiguous on its face, then its meaning must be determined from the

four corners of the instrument without any resort to extrinsic evidence

of any nature. Id. (citing Montgomery Elevator v. Building Engineering

Service, 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984)).

Complainant did not indicate in the August 27, 1998 letter or on

appeal what provision of the settlement agreement had been breached by

the agency. A review of complainant's correspondence with the agency

and his affidavit provided during the agency's investigation of the

breach claim, indicate that complainant is claiming that he was not

provided a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Complainant

may also be claiming that the failure to provide such an accommodation

was retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity. The Commission

finds that complainant is not claiming that the agency failed to comply

with the appraisal revision, pay adjustment, and restoration of leave

provisions of the settlement agreement.

The record shows that the agency took steps in good faith compliance

with the agreement to provide complainant with an accommodation for

his disability. The agency also indicates that, despite its effort,

the agency failed to find any acceptable equipment to adequately assist

complainant in meeting the requirements of his position. Complainant has

not claimed on appeal that the agency failed to take any of the actions

it claimed it took in the final decision.

The Commission finds that complainant's claim that the agency failed

to provide him with a reasonable accommodation in violation of the

settlement agreement (including a possible retaliation claim) amounts to

a claim that a subsequent act (or acts) of discrimination violated the

settlement agreement. The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg at 37,660

(to be codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c))

provides that claims that subsequent acts of discrimination violate a

settlement agreement shall be processed as separate complaints under

the regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. at 37656 (to be codified as

and hereinafter cited as � 1614.106) rather than as breach allegations.

Therefore, we find that the agency did not breach provisions C or D of the

settlement agreement. Such a claim of discrimination should be processed

as a separate complaint under � 1614.106 rather than as a breach claim.

If complainant wishes to pursue such a discrimination claim, then he

should contact an EEO Counselor. The Commission does not address in

this decision in any manner whether the agency discriminated against

complainant or provided complainant with any reasonable accommodation.

The agency's determination finding that the agency did not breach the

settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)

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:

Dec. 14, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_____________________ _________________________ Date

Equal Employment Assistant

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.