01A02009_r
03-19-2002
Eben T. Griffen, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Commissary Agency), Agency.
Eben T. Griffen v. Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency)
01A02009
March 19, 2002
.
Eben T. Griffen,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Commissary Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02009
Agency No. EUR-99-CA-0112-E
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission for a determination on whether the
agency breached a settlement agreement between the parties. On September
8, 1999, the parties resolved complainant's complaints by entering into
a settlement agreement which provided, in pertinent part, that the agency
would do the following:
3(a) from the date of this settlement agreement advertise all vacant
positions through the local civilian personnel office prior to converting
an employee to a different employment status.
3(b) within thirty days of the date of this settlement agreement, develop
a time for monthly staff meetings, which will include the participation
of all available Sales Store Checkers.
3(c) agency will immediately initiate a two-year overseas tour extension
to begin at the end of Complainant's current overseas tour.
3(d) within forty-five (45) days of the date of this settlement agreement,
agency will convert the vacant cash clerk position (position #8811) to a
Store Worker, WG-4 permanent full-time (night shift) position in order for
this position to be used for two Store Worker, WG-4 permanent part-time
(night shift) positions of which one will be filled by the Complainant.
By letter to the agency dated October 24, 1999, complainant alleged
that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Complainant
states, in his two sentence allegation, that he �feel[s] very strongly
that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of [the] settlement
agreement.� Complainant's second sentence requests reinstatement of
the complaint.
The agency issued a decision on November 4, 1999, finding no breach of
the settlement agreement. The agency, in its decision, states that it
understands complainant's allegation of breach to concern provision (d)
of the settlement agreement. However, the agency's choice of paragraph
(d) over paragraphs (a) - (c) of the settlement agreement does not appear
to be predicated on any particular reason. Nonetheless, the agency
found that it did not breach paragraph (d) of the settlement agreement.
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. 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 v. United States Postal
Service, 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).
Complainant, on appeal, argues that the settlement agreement was
breached when his hours were reduced from 32 to 20 hours per week.
Complainant also argues that during the settlement agreement, the parties
verbally agreed that complainant would receive more hours. However,
the settlement agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face and does
not address the hours complainant will work in the new position.
Complainant also argues that he was �under tremendous pressure� to
sign the settlement agreement. However, there is no indication that
complainant was forced to sign the settlement agreement. Complainant has
failed to show what provisions of the settlement agreement were breached.
The agency's decision finding no breach of the September 8, 1999
settlement agreement 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
March 19, 2002
__________________
Date