LeConte M. Davis, Complainant,v.Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 26, 2004
01A42137_r (E.E.O.C. Jul. 26, 2004)

01A42137_r

07-26-2004

LeConte M. Davis, Complainant, v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.


LeConte M. Davis v. Department of Health and Human Services

01A42137

July 26, 2004

.

LeConte M. Davis,

Complainant,

v.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Secretary,

Department of Health and Human Services,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A42137

Agency No. 020011

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging breach of the

December 2, 2002 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(1) This agreement is not intended and shall not affect any rights

that complainant may have to benefits of any kind awarded by the

Office of Worker[s'] Compensation Programs [OWCP] of the United States

Department of Labor. The Agency shall not take any action that has the

purpose or effect of interfering with, or abridging, any such rights.

Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this agreement in any way

prohibits the agency from complying with any requests for documents

or other information received from the Department of Labor regarding

complainant's OWCP claim.

Complainant agrees to refer any potential employers to [M1], Chief,

NCI Human Resource Operations, NIH. When called for a reference,

[M1] will verify complainant's employment with the Agency and confirm

the following information: (a) complainant's entry on duty date with

the agency, (b) complainant's official position title and salary. [M1]

will provide no other information.

By electronic mail message to the agency dated January 22, 2004,

complainant alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement

agreement. Complainant alleged that the agency had failed to reimburse

him for various monetary amounts including reimbursement for attorney's

fees, wages for extra duties, and contributions to his accounts in the

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).

In its February 9, 2004 decision, the agency concluded that the agency

had fully implemented the settlement agreement. The agency found that

complainant had filed an OWCP claim, that the agency had provided

documents and responses to requests from the Department of Labor

pertaining to complainant's claim. Further, the agency found that no

one had contacted the agency official (M1) responsible for providing a

neutral reference on complainant's behalf from the settlement date until

the time M1 left the position specified in the settlement agreement.

The agency concluded that the agreement did not provide complainant with

any monetary settlement.

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 evidence supports the agency's

determination that no breach of the settlement agreement occurred.

The settlement agreement does not provide the monetary reimbursements

complainant states he is due under the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's determination that no breach of the

settlement agreement occurred.

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 26, 2004

__________________

Date