0120162245
03-16-2017
Mauricio C.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas E. Price, MD., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (National Institutes of Health), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Mauricio C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. Price, MD.,
Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services
(National Institutes of Health),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120162245
Agency No. HHSNIHCC08114
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated January 11, 2017, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this compliance action, Complainant worked as a Program Specialist at the Agency's Nursing Department facility in Bethesda, Maryland.
On July 15, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(16) The Agency agrees to refer all inquiries regarding the Complainant's employment with the Agency to the Project Manager, NIH Records Management Center, ...The Records Management Center will provide a neutral reference by verifying the Complainant's employment with the Agency, providing dates of employment with the CC and his official position title and salary. If prospective employers contact any member of CC management, they will be referred to the Project manager, NIH Records Management Center. The Complainant may arrange individually for substantive employment references from personal references of his choosing, and subject to their willingness to respond, in addition to the reference described in this paragraph, but such further references shall not be deemed to be employment actions, or official actions of any kind, of NIH or CC;
(17) The Agency agrees to refrain from submitting an opposition to Complainant's application for unemployment benefits or otherwise oppose Complainant's application for unemployment benefits, should he choose to apply. Complainant agrees and understands that the Agency has no authority to determine whether he will receive unemployment benefits. In addition, the parties understand that the Agency may be required to cooperate fully, with an official request for information concerning Complainant's employment with the Agency, which may affect whether Complainant is entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Nothing in this paragraph or settlement shall be construed as an assurance or representation by the Agency that Complainant will receive unemployment benefits;
(18) The Complainant will voluntarily sign and submit a Request for Personnel Action (Standard Form 52) resigning his position effective at close of business on October 1, 2015 and indicate the reason as "personal reasons" or "to pursue other opportunities."
(24) The payments specified in this provision, Payment of Funds, constitute complete satisfaction of any financial claims, demands, or causes of action Complainant has, or may have, including, but not limited to, back pay, damages, attorney fees and costs or any compensation relating to or arising from his employment with the Agency prior to the effective date of this agreement; and
(31) This agreement constitutes the complete understanding between the Complainant and the Agency with respect to the matters encompassed in this agreement. No other promises or agreements will be binding unless this agreement is amended by a writing signed by both parties.
After Complainant received a letter from his insurance company regarding a medical invoice, Complainant contacted the Human Resources (HR) representative to inquire about his benefits. He was informed that the claim was denied because his employment was terminated. Complainant stated that he corrected the HR representative and said, "No, I resigned." The record at Exhibit 4 includes the Notification of Personnel Action, Standard Form 50. The SF 50 lists the Nature of the Action as "Resignation," which was effective October 1, 2015. The SF-50 included, in the remarks section 45, language that stated "since the reason for separation generally disqualifies, this department will appeal any award for unemployment compensation benefits." The record does not show that the Agency challenged his claim for unemployment benefits. The SF-50 also notified Complainant that he was "eligible for temporary continuation of [his] FEHP coverage for up to 18 months."
In June of 2016, Complainant stated that he notified the EEO Director of his claim of noncompliance. In addition, by letter to the Agency dated August 3, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency "failed to provide a neutral reference," "failed to provide any benefits pertaining to employment history since the execution of the agreement," claimed that he had not been able to reach the contact person identified in the agreement after he raised his claims, and claimed that the Agency listed him as "terminated," rather than as having voluntarily resigned. He asked that his complaint be reinstated.
After waiting 35 days with no decision from the Agency, Complainant appealed directly to the Commission. That appeal was docketed as EEOC Appeal 0120162138. Complainant then informed this office that he wanted to withdraw his appeal. The matter was administratively-closed. Complainant subsequently asked that his appeal continue. This is the matter before us, which was docketed as a new appeal, EEOC Appeal 0120162245.
Agency Determination
The Agency's decision came after Complainant's appeal.
In its Determination, the Agency concluded that it complied with the terms of the Agreement. The Agency reasoned that it did not oppose Complainant's claim for unemployment benefits. The Agency stated that it utilized the Standard Form (SF) 50. The form lists the Reason for resignation: personal reasons. The Agency acknowledged that the SF-50 form included under the remarks section 45 a statement "Since the reason for separation generally disqualifies, this department will appeal any award for unemployment benefits." The Agency stated that it reviewed its records and there had been no challenge by the Agency to Complainant's unemployment claims. The Agency concluded that "there is no provision in the Agreement that addresses what Complainant has identified [as a breach]." The Agency's Determination found no breach occurred.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant asserts that the Agency breached the Agreement because the parties "mutually agreed" that he would voluntarily resign, in exchange for the Agency's promise to remove all reprimands and suspensions from his record, but the Agency was using his "resignation" as an involuntary "termination" to disqualify him from his unemployment compensation benefits. Complainant also asserts that the Agency breached the Agreement when the Agency did not appear at a hearing to clarify the statement on the SF 50 or provide him a corrected SF-50. Complainant acknowledged that HR was informed that he voluntarily quit and was not involuntarily separated.
ANALYSIS
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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).
We find that the Agreement is valid and binding on both parties. We also note that Complainant had a representative at the time of the execution of the Agreement.
Further, one issue appears to be the discontinuance of medical benefits after his resignation. The Agreement did not specifically reference Complainant's health benefits. The Agreement also did not require that the Agency appear at future hearings regarding Complainant's benefits or address the availability of the contact person.
In the instant case, the parties agreed that Complainant would resign effective October 1, 2015, and the Agency agreed to issue him a neutral reference, to not object to his request for unemployment compensation, to cancel certain pending personnel actions, and to pay him back-pay. There is no evidence that the Project Manager failed to provide a neutral reference in verifying the Complainant's employment. Moreover, although the SF-50 contained the disclaimer regarding "the reason for separation as generally disqualifying," there is no evidence that the Agency otherwise actually opposed Complainant's application for unemployment benefits. The Agreement did not address the nuances or consequences of the use of the term "resignation."
For all of these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the terms of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Determination, finding no breach.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 tends 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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 16, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120162245
6
0120162245