01A31609_r
07-16-2003
Joseph Gregory Hall, Complainant, v. Glenn L. McCullough, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Joseph Gregory Hall v. Tennessee Valley Authority
01A31609
July 16, 2003
.
Joseph Gregory Hall,
Complainant,
v.
Glenn L. McCullough, Jr.,
Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31609
Agency No. 0217-97114
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated December 6, 2002, regarding its compliance
with the terms of the May 17, 1996 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2. TVA agrees to withdraw the Letter of Warning issued to the Complainant
on February 22, 1996, three months after the Complainant returns to his
position at Shawnee Power Plant, after proper medical release to do so.
. . .
TVA agrees to make reasonable accommodations for the known handicap of
the complainant in regard to his medical restrictions after his return
to work pursuant to proper medical release.
. . .
TVA agrees that the terms of this agreement will be implemented no
later than 30 days after the date that the conditions herein described
have been adhered to. TVA agrees to provide written notice to the Equal
Opportunity Staff when TVA has satisfied its obligations under paragraph
2 of this settlement agreement.
In a complaint dated February 14, 1997<1>, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to return him to work from
March 18, 1996 onward; that the complainant was not placed in a job at
another agency location from March 18, 1996 onward; and that complainant
had not received retraining and placed in other jobs within his medical
restrictions from March 18, 1996 onward.
In its December 6, 2002 decision, the agency concluded that the only
breach of the settlement agreement that occurred was regarding the
removal of the Letter of Warning. The agency acknowledged that the
Letter of Warning had not been removed from complainant's personnel
files even though complainant had accepted a new position within his
restrictions and returned to work with the agency on July 13, 1998.
The agency's decision directed the undertaking of corrective action
and subsequent record documents confirm that the Letter of Warning was
removed from complainant's official personnel files (referenced by the
agency as complainant's Personal History Record) on December 16, 2002.
The agency found that the remaining terms of the settlement agreement
had been fully implemented.
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 that with the corrective action noted in
the agency's final decision, the evidence shows that the agency has
complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. We note that
the agency's performance regarding the return of complainant to agency
employment is conditioned upon complainant providing a proper medical
release. We find nothing in the record to indicate that from the time
the settlement agreement was executed (on May 17, 1996) until the time
complainant's return to service in July 1998, complainant submitted the
proper medical release required.
The Commission finds that the agency is now in compliance with the
settlement agreement.
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
July 16, 2003
__________________
Date
1Complainant's breach allegations were first
processed as claims of a new complaint. By letter to the complainant
dated November 3, 1997, complainant was notified that this new complaint
would be processed as claims that the agency had breached the settlement
agreement of May 17, 1996.