01986618
11-27-2000
Louise L. White, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.
Louise L. White v. Department of Defense (DLA)
01986618
November 27, 2000
.
Louise L. White,
Complainant,
v.
William S. Cohen,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Logistics Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01986618
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated July 30, 1998, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the September 15, 1994 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.<1> See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) I [Person Al], agree to make my supervisor aware that I wish to
attend a Managing Diversity course, and when made available, I further
agree to attend the course.
By letter to the agency dated March 21, 1995, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement, and requested that the
agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that Person A failed to attend the �agreed upon number of hours
of diversity training.�
In a prior appeal, the Commission found that the agency failed to provide
evidence that any Managing Diversity course was available or that Person
A attended such a course. The Commission remanded the matter to the
agency for supplementation of the record in support of its determination
that it had complied with the specific terms of the agreement relating to
the Managing Diversity course. White v. Department of Defense (Defense
Logistics Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 01965442 (January 23, 1998). On July
30, 1998, the agency again issued a decision dismissing complainant's
breach claim, finding that Person A attended a Managing Diversity course
on March 25, 1998. The agency concluded that it was in full compliance
with the terms of the September 15, 1994 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 instant case, the record contains a copy of an agency document
identified as a Class Data Report. Therein, Person A is listed on
the roster for a course entitled �Managing Diversity in DLA,� on March
25, 1998. The settlement agreement did not require, as complainant
argues, any specific number of hours in a Managing Diversity course.
Moreover, the agreement does not require a time frame in which the course
was to be completed. In applying the plain meaning rule, we find that if
complainant wished to require a particular number hours of training to be
completed within a specific period of time, she and/or her representative
should have negotiated for such terms when the agreement was executed
by the parties. Unexpressed intentions do not control the contract's
construction. See Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). To the extent that the agency
breached the agreement by not providing diversity training to Person A
until March 1998, any purported breach was cured when Person A enrolled
for training in March 1998. The Commission determines that complainant
failed to show that the agency breached the settlement agreement. The
agency's July 30, 1998 decision finding no settlement breach 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
November 27, 2000
___________________
Date
__________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.