01A24940_r
05-22-2003
Janne Middleton, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Janne Middleton v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A24940
May 22, 2003
.
Janne Middleton,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24940
Agency No. 96-1795
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated August 9, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a July 14, 1999 settlement agreement.
The July 14, 1999 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2. The Department of Veterans Affairs agrees to:
a. Place the complainant in an RN position in the Extended Health Care
Service Line which primarily functions in an outpatient clinic setting
but also provides inpatient psychiatric consultation and psychiatric
home visits.
b. Jointly develop a functional statement for the above-position.
By letter to the agency dated May 10, 2002, complainant, through her
personal representative, alleged that the agency breached the settlement
agreement, and requested that the agency comply with the agreement or
reopen the underlying complaint. Complainant attached an April 29, 2002
letter from the President of complainant's Union (also complainant's
representative) to the agency concerning the closure of the Geriatric
Primary Care Clinic (Geriatric Clinic) in the Extended Health Care Service
Line (EHCSL) where complainant was assigned as a result of the settlement.
The letter expressed concern over the closure's adverse impact on the
settlement agreement and reminded the agency that the EHCSL still existed,
that �the agreed upon functional statement� of complainant's duties was
still viable, and that the opportunity to perform the functions described
within the functional statement �still exists.�
The record also shows that in a May 8, 2002 response to the April 29,
2002 letter from the Union, the agency stated that although no final
decision had been made regarding reassignment for complainant, she was
currently being reassigned to the All Inclusive Care program in the
ECHSL. The letter also stated that if the Union had any �appropriate�
reassignment proposals for complainant, they should be submitted by May
14, 2002.
In its August 9, 2002 final decision, the agency concluded that it had
honored the settlement agreement and no breach had occurred. The agency
found that, pursuant to the agreement, complainant had been placed in an
RN position in the EHCSL with the functions specified in the agreement
using the functional statement collaborated upon between the parties.
The agency also determined that the terms of the settlement were not meant
to be forever, that the agreement did not speak to how long complainant
would remain in the EHCSL or address unforeseen circumstances, and that
there was no evidence of bad faith.
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).
We find that complainant has failed to show agency breach of the
settlement agreement. The agreement required that the agency place
complainant in an RN position �in the Extended Health Care Service
Line which primarily functions in an outpatient clinic setting but also
provides inpatient psychiatric consultation and psychiatric home visits,�
and that the parties jointly develop a functional statement for the RN
position. We find that although the functional statement developed by
the parties originally put complainant in a position in the Geriatric
Clinic, the agreement did not necessitate assignment to the Geriatric
Clinic or specify the exact position within EHCSL that complainant
must be placed, and only required that she be placed in EHCSL with the
functions described. The record indicates that complainant was reassigned
into the promised position (based on the developed functional statement)
in the EHCSL from 1999 until June 2002, and that the agreement does not
specify the duration of complainant's placement. The Commission has held
that where an individual bargains for a position without any specific
terms as to the length of service, it would be improper to interpret the
reasonable intentions of the parties to include employment in that exact
position ad infinitum. See Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Papac v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05910808 (December 12, 1991).
We therefore find that, given the instant record, complainant has
failed to show that her reassignment breached the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no settlement breach
is hereby 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
May 22, 2003
__________________
Date