01A34109_r
12-30-2003
Linda C. Gross v. Department of Defense (Defense Finance & Accounting
Service)
01A34109
December 30, 2003
.
Linda C. Gross,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Finance & Accounting Service),
Appeal No. 01A34109
Agency No. DFAS-IN-PSO-01-014
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated May 27, 2003, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the May 14, 2002 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The Agency agrees to:
Give priority consideration to the Complainant for the first GS-510-7
position vacancy, with promotion potential, that is being filled through
the Delegated Examining Unit (DEU) in Kansas City.
The priority consideration will be for any site in which a position
vacancy for GS 510-7, with promotion potential, that is being filled
through the Delegated Examining Unit in Kansas City and will be valid
for one year from the date of this agreement or until the Complainant
declines an offered position or is selected for a position, whichever
occurs first.
By letter to the agency dated February 24, 2003, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to fulfill the priority
consideration requirements of the settlement agreement.
In its May 27, 2003 decision, the agency concluded that no breach of the
settlement agreement occurred. The agency determined that complainant's
resume was forwarded to DFAS-Cleveland for priority consideration for
an Accountant, GS 510-7 position, with full performance level of GS-11.
The agency further found that this was the first position matching the
criteria of the settlement agreement to be filled by the DEU since it was
signed.<1> The agency concluded that complainant was informed that she
was not selected for the position and nothing in the settlement agreement
provided that complainant must be given a reason for her non-selection.
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, the Commission finds that on January 6, 2003,
the agency properly forwarded complainant's resume for priority
consideration for the Accountant position. By letter dated January 28,
2003, complainant was informed that she was not selected for the position
and that the position was being opened to competition.
"Priority consideration" generally requires the agency to consider
the employee for a position before referring any other candidate to
the selecting official for consideration. See Johnson v. Department of
Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01941916 (December 20, 1994),
req. for recons. den., EEOC Request No. 05950331 (March 21, 1996). There
is no indication in the record as to why complainant was not selected
for the Accountant position via priority consideration. When granted
priority consideration, an individual is entitled to the position unless
the agency can demonstrate a permissible reason for the non-selection.
See Pakele v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931008 (July
7, 1994). In the instant matter, no reason at all has been provided.
There are no statements in the record from the selecting official as to
why complainant was not selected. Therefore, the Commission shall remand
the matter so that the agency may supplement the record with evidence
showing why complainant was not selected for the Accountant position.
The agency shall thereafter determine whether it has complied with the
priority consideration provision of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's finding that it has not breached the May 14,
2002 settlement agreement is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the
agency for a supplemental investigation as provided below.
ORDER
Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall:
1. Place into the record an affidavit from the selecting official
explaining the reasons for not selecting complainant as the priority
consideration candidate for the Accountant, GS 510-7 position.
Issue a new decision as to whether the agency has complied with
the priority consideration provisions of the May 14, 2002 settlement
agreement. A copy of the decision must be sent to the Compliance Officer
as referenced herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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
December 30, 2003
__________________
Date
1On appeal, the agency determined that this
was the only position filled by the DEU during applicable time frame
that met the settlement agreement's criteria.