Margie Shorter, Complainant,v.Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 7, 2000
01992657 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 7, 2000)

01992657

03-07-2000

Margie Shorter, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Margie Shorter, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01992657

) Agency No. 980315

Daniel R. Glickman, )

Secretary, )

Department of Agriculture, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On February 11, 1999, the complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated January 11,

1999, finding that it was in substantial compliance with the terms

of the May 23, 1997 settlement agreement (SA) into which the parties

entered.<1> See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660 (1999) (to be

codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. ��

1614.402, 1614.405, 1614.504(b)).

In exchange for withdrawing her informal complaint of non-selection

based on race (African American), gender (female) and age (June 5, 1945)

discrimination the agency agreed in pertinent part, to:

temporarily promote the complainant effective May 25, 1997 thru August

16, 1997, to the position of GS-436-12 Supervisory Plant Protection and

Quarantine Officer, Atlanta, Georgia . . . .

Additionally, the SA contained a handwritten asterisk at the end of

the above term and at the bottom of the page the following handwritten

statement: �[c]omplainant will be promoted to the GS-436-12/6 level.�

The statement was initialed by the EEO counselor who had signed the SA,

but was not initialed by the complainant. It is undisputed that the

handwritten modification to the SA was added after the pro se complainant

had signed the SA and not in her presence.

By letter to the agency dated January 21, 1998, the complainant requested

full compliance with the SA as negotiated or the right to file a formal

complaint. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the agency failed

to permanently promote her after she had completed the agreed upon three

months of a temporary promotion assignment, as well as, the two week

developmental assignment to enhance her supervisory and administrative

skills.

In its January 11, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that it had

substantially complied with the SA. The agency admitted that it had

incorrectly documented the effective date of the complainant's temporary

promotion and ordered that the personnel records be corrected, and

retroactive back pay (with interest) and benefits be paid for the period

May 25, 1997, through June 7, 1997. The agency further stated that

it did not agree to permanently promote the complainant. The agency

contended that the handwritten modification was only to clarify the

step level at which the complainant would be paid during her temporary

promotion assignment. Therefore, the agency informed the complainant

that it would not reinstate her complaint.

On appeal, the complainant, through her attorney, asserted that the

handwritten modification was added to the SA by the EEO counselor to

represent her intent to withdraw her EEO complaint in exchange for a

permanent promotion. The complainant asserted that prior to signing

the SA, she contacted the EEO counselor and pointed out that it did

not contain the agreed upon permanent promotion. She further asserted

that the EEO counselor assured her that the term would be added, however

the SA had to be signed now. The complainant signed the SA and the EEO

counselor modified the agreement.

The complainant contended that there was no meeting of the minds, that

she would not have withdrawn her complaint for a temporary promotion

only, that the agency violated the spirit of the SA and intentionally

failed to comply with the SA which she had entered into in good faith.

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 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, it appears that the agency believed the handwritten

modification was ambiguous because it sought a clarification statement

from the EEO counselor who had written it. The EEO counselor stated the

modification was made to ensure that the complainant was temporarily

promoted to and paid at the GS-12/6 level and that during resolution

discussions the agency did not offer to permanently promote the

complainant. However, the complainant contended that the EEO counselor

assured her that the modification would be made to ensure her permanent

promotion.

The Commission has held that where the meaning of the document is open to

question, the circumstances under which the contract was made may always

be set forth in interpreting the contract. See Johnson v. Department of

the Interior, EEOC Request No. 05930532 (March 31, 1994). Moreover, while

the general principles of contract law lean toward the interpretation

favoring validity, a party may avoid an otherwise valid contract because

of a mutual mistake in its formation, that is, when the parties' common

intention has gone awry. Id. We find that, based on the facts of this

case, the SA entered into on May 23, 1997, does not represent a meeting

of the minds of the parties and is, therefore, void for vagueness.

See Mullen v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05890349 (May

18, 1989).

Accordingly, the agency's decision to deny the complainant's request

to reopen her complaint was improper and is VACATED. The complainant's

complaint is REMANDED to the agency for further processing in accordance

with this decision and the applicable regulations.

ORDER (E1199)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded complaint in accordance

with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall acknowledge to the

complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30)

calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall

issue to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall

notify complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty

(150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the

matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant

requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue

a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's

request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and an

copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of

rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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) (Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action,

the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (R1199)

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:

March 7, 2000

____________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________________ _________________________

1 On 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.