0120064797
03-26-2008
Jaimon J. Mappilaparampil, Complainant, v. Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Jaimon J. Mappilaparampil,
Complainant,
v.
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120064797
Agency No. TD-06-0012B
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
agency decision (FAD) dated July 17, 2006, finding that the agency was
in compliance with the terms of the April 27, 2006 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.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the agency
would:
(1a) Provide the Aggrieved training in COBOL, TSO 9 (Time-Sharing
Option), and JCL (Job Control) Language and Operations Systems work
that is directly associated with Team B. This action will take effect
effective May 8, 2006 and last for 90 days during which time the aggrieved
will be assigned a coach.
(1d) Provide weekly written and oral feedback during the 90 day
training period that communicates the level of performance (fully
successful, outstanding, etc.) as it pertains to the critical elements
and standards.
By letter to the agency dated May 16, 2006, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant
alleged that while his supervisor "may indeed give me weekly reviews,"
she has not provided a positive coaching experience. Complainant further
alleged that after he received an assignment from his supervisor on April
26, 2006, his supervisor failed to monitor complainant's progress on
the assignment. Complainant stated that his supervisor rated his work
on the assignment as "unacceptable." Complainant further stated that
the supervisor has only provided negative feedback which has created a
toxic and destructive work relationship.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach the agreement
because the agency had provided complainant with the promised coaching
and training. On appeal, complainant argues that the FAD improperly
found no breach because his supervisor "attempted to coerce and harass"
him regarding assignments and challenged his honesty and integrity.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
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 O 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).
In provision 1a, the agency agreed that beginning May 8, 2006, it
would provide complainant with 90 days of training and coaching in
COBOL, Time-Sharing Option command language, and Job Control Language.
In provision 1d, the agency agreed to provide complainant with weekly
feedback during the 90-day training period assessing complainant's
performance. Complainant contends that the agency breached this
provision because his supervisor did not coach him on an assignment and
only provided him with negative feedback. The record contains a copy
of an email message from complainant's supervisor to an EEO official.
In that message, the supervisor stated that since May 10, 2006, she has
issued complainant weekly and oral status reports and that she and project
leaders have coached complainant on his assignments. The supervisor
further stated that she has gone to complainant's workstation to assist
him with COBOL language, Job Control Language, and Time-Sharing Option
command language; and provided him with samples of COBOL source code,
pseudo-code, flowcharts, and Time-Share Option commands that are directly
associated with the work for Team B. The record also contains copies
of some of complainant's weekly performance evaluations.
Upon review, we are persuaded that the agency provided complainant with
the promised training, coaching, and feedback. Complainant contends that
the agency failed to provide him with coaching for an assignment on which
he received an unsatisfactory review, but complainant himself stated that
he believed that he understood the instructions for the assignment and
worked independently to complete the assignment. Further, complainant
does not maintain that he asked his supervisor for assistance on the
assignment after she issued him the instructions, only that she should
have monitored his progress on the assessment. We determine that by
providing complainant with weekly and oral status reports and training
materials, the agency provided complainant with the promised feedback
and coaching. Regarding complainant's claim that his supervisor only
gave him negative feedback and fostered a toxic working relationship,
we determine that the settlement agreement did not promise complainant
positive assessments of his work or that the relationship with complainant
and his supervisor would be pleasant. Consequently, we find that the
agency substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement
and find no breach. Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
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 26, 2008_______________
Date
2
0120064797
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036