0120171742
09-12-2017
Elroy K.,1 Complainant, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Elroy K.,1
Complainant,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120171742
Agency No. PHI160781SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated March 21, 2017, 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 compliance action, Complainant worked as a Disability Processing Specialist at the Agency's Disability Processing Branch facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On September 27, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(3) The Disability Branch Chief [named] will meet with [Complainant] to discuss concerns and issues about employee management relations (and on improving the relations) in the Disability Process Branch; and
(4) The actions in items 1 through 3 above will be completed within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and there are no other representations or obligations, except for those expressly contained in writing herein.
By letter to the Agency dated December 26, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. In a February 3, 2017 email, Complainant provided a statement, adding that the meeting with the named management official "was not accomplished." He also alleged that he is being subjected to harassment on a continuous basis, with the most recent incident occurring on January 11, 2017. He alleged that "MATPSC has consistently failed to address multiple incidents, which appear to [Complainant] to have racial overtones."
The Agency determined in its Final Determination that it complied with the terms of the Agreement. The Agency found that a meeting took place between Complainant and the named official. The Agency references the statement of the named management official who attested that she met with Complainant to discuss his concerns. The record shows the meeting took place on November 1, 2016. The Agency reasoned that the Agreement does not expressly require his representative's participation in the meeting. Next, the Agency reasoned that Complainant acknowledged a meeting occurred, but stated that the meeting was not about provision 3. The Agency found that Complaint was raising new issues in his breach claim that were not addressed as settlement terms. The Agency stated Complainant raised new harassment claims and questioned the Agency's determination regarding his hostile work allegations. This appeal followed.
Complainant did not file a brief in support of his appeal.
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 on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement required the manager to meet with Complainant. The record shows that a meeting took place. Complainant was dissatisfied with the meeting because he believed that the meeting did not address his concerns, pertain to the issues noted in paragraph 3 and did not include his representative.
The Agreement did not require the participation of his representative and did not elaborate on the nature of the discussion to be held beyond stating that the meeting would discuss "concerns and issues about employee management relations" and improving relations.
We find that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency breached the Agreement.
To the extent that Complainant wishes to raise new claims, he should contact the EEO Counselor to raise the new claims, because those claims are beyond the scope of this Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Final Determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 12, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120171742
2
0120171742