01990637
01-05-2001
Laura A. Riddle, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Laura A. Riddle v. Department of the Navy
01990637
January 5, 2001
.
Laura A. Riddle,
Complainant,
v.
Richard J. Danzig,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01990637
Agency No. DON-98-00187-016
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated August 20, 1998, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the April 8, 1998 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
. . .
(6) [Both parties] agree that they will keep the terms, and fact
of this Settlement Agreement completely confidential, except to the
extent disclosure may be required by law, regulation, or court order.
In addition, Complainant agrees that she and her representative will not
hereafter disclose any information concerning this Settlement Agreement
or her discrimination complaint to anyone employed by or connected with
the Agency . . . , including, but not limited to, any past, present,
or prospective employee or applicant for employment with the [agency].
By letter to the agency dated August 7, 1998, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and she requested
that her complaint be reinstated. Specifically, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the confidentiality provision when it disclosed the
terms of the agreement to the EEOC in another proceeding.
In its August 20, 1998 decision, the agency concluded that its disclosure
of the terms of the settlement agreement to the EEOC did not constitute
a breach of the agreement.
The record reveals that complainant filed a formal EEO complaint
(Agency Case No. DON-97-00187-061) against the agency on July 17, 1997.
On December 18, 1997, complainant filed a second formal EEO complaint
(Agency Case No. DON-98-00187-016) against the agency which was settled
by the April 8, 1998 settlement agreement. Following the execution of
the April 1998 settlement agreement, complainant continued to pursue her
previously filed complaint. On July 1, 1998, the EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ) hearing complainant's case ordered the parties to submit
Pre-Hearing Statements. In response to the AJ's Order, the agency
submitted a Pre-Hearing Statement and Motion for a Decision without
a Hearing. In addition, the agency submitted a Motion to Remand
Agency Case No. DON-97-00187-061 to the agency for dismissal as moot,
due, in part, to the terms of the April 8, 1998 settlement agreement.
In response to the agency's reference to the settlement in its Pre-Hearing
Statement, Motion for Findings without a Hearing, and Motion to Remand,
complainant claimed that the agency breached the confidentiality clause
of the settlement agreement.
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).
In the present case, we find that the agency did not breach the April 8,
1998 settlement agreement. The settlement agreement states that the
final agreement will not be shared with any other party except to the
extent disclosure may be required by law, regulation, or court order.
The record reveals that the agency disclosed the terms of the settlement
agreement to the EEOC AJ. The Commission finds that such a disclosure by
the agency did not breach the confidentiality provision of the settlement
agreement. The agency's belief that DON-97-00187-061 was moot because
of the settlement agreement was sufficient reason for the agency to
submit to the AJ a copy of the settlement agreement and therefore did
not constitute a breach of the agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding that it did not breach the
settlement agreement was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
January 5, 2001
__________________
Date