01a50314
09-09-2005
James C. York, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
James C. York v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A50314
September 9, 2005
.
James C. York,
Complainant,
v.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A50314
Agency No. 200K-1403, 200K-1174
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated September 10, 2004, finding that
it was in compliance with the terms of the July 11, 2001 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:
(3) The agency agrees to place the complainant in an Individual
Development Plan [IDP] that is designed to assist him plan and carry out
an organized approach to enhance his current job performance, as well
as a means to achieve any career goals he may have. The complainant can
choose either his supervisor or his own personal mentor to work with him
through this program. The IDP is designed to train the complainant to
enable achievement in career goals, but does not guarantee placement in
any designated or specific position. It is the responsibility of the
complainant to conform to and comply with the requirements of the IDP.
By letters to the agency submitted in May 2004 and July 2004, complainant
alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement.<1>
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to afford him
the opportunity to achieve his career objective. Complainant asserted
that he had been denied a path to the Senior Executive Service (SES)
and that he had been denied any position beyond the GS-11 level despite
having met the requirements of the IDP. Complainant indicated that
he had watched less qualified, less senior white employees obtain
high management positions while he was denied positions for which he
was qualified. Complainant noted that he had not previously alleged a
breach of settlement because he wanted to give the agency the benefit
of the doubt, until he became aware of the hiring of a white individual
he considered to be a less qualified employee.
In its September 10, 2004 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant had
abandoned his right to pursue his claim under the doctrine of laches.
The FAD further found that, absent the untimeliness of complainant's
breach claim, the agency had not breached the settlement agreement because
the settlement agreement did not guarantee complainant placement in any
designated or specific position.
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 the instant case, we find the agency did not breach the terms of the
July 11, 2001 settlement agreement when complainant was not selected
for a higher level position. We note that the terms of the settlement
agreement indicate that the IDP �is designed to train the complainant
to enable achievement in career goals, but does not guarantee placement
in any designated or specific position. It is the responsibility of
the complainant to conform to and comply with the requirements of the
IDP.� Therefore, while the terms of the agreement require the agency to
place complainant in an IDP and help him achieve his career objectives,
the agreement does not obligate the agency to provide complainant with
an actual position/promotion. If the complainant wanted the agency
to guarantee a promotion, he was free to negotiate with the agency to
include this provision in the settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye
v. General Service Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01851903 (March
4, 1987). Thus, we find the agency complied with provision (3) of the
settlement agreement. Because we find the agency did not breach the July
11, 2001 settlement agreement, we do not address whether complainant's
claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the 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
September 9, 2005
__________________
Date
1The record reveals that complainant initially alleged breach of
settlement in a formal complaint filed on March 25, 2004, which also
alleged discrimination based on race (African American) and reprisal for
prior EEO activity. Complainant and his representative subsequently
submitted letters on May 28, 2004 and July 8, 2004, addressing the
specifics of complainant's breach allegation.