Michael Sylvester, Complainant,v.Michael w. Wynne, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 11, 2008
0120083227 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 11, 2008)

0120083227

12-11-2008

Michael Sylvester, Complainant, v. Michael w. Wynne, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Michael Sylvester,

Complainant,

v.

Michael w. Wynne,

Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083227

Agency No. 9R1M06108T

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated June 20, 2008, finding that it

was in compliance with the terms of the February 12, 2007 settlement

agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R � 1614.504(b);

and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:

(I) In exchange for the promises of the complainant in this agreement,

the agency

will change item 9 in [complainant's] 2005 to 2006 performance evaluation

from a "4" to an [sic] "9" giving him a total score of 80. Action to

effect this change will be initiated within thirty (30) calendar days

of the signing of this agreement.

By letter to the agency dated May 22, 2008, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that

the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant

alleged that the agency failed to initiate the change to his performance

evaluation as provided for in the settlement agreement.

In its June 20, 2008 FAD, the agency concluded that it had complied with

the provisions of the February 12, 2007 settlement agreement entered

into by the parties. Specifically, the agency indicates that when the

agreement was signed, complainant no longer worked for the agency having

been removed from his employment due to other unrelated circumstances.

The agency indicates further that following arbitration, complainant was

returned to work on November 9, 2007at which time the agency admits, it

failed to update complainant's performance evaluation as agreed. However,

the agency cured its breach of the agreement on June 11, 2008, when

complainant's performance was updated appropriately and in turn signed

by complainant on June 13, 2008. On appeal, complainant does not dispute

that the agency in fact updated his performance evaluation in accordance

with the agreement. Complainant argues, however, that the agency failed

to do so within 30 days as required by the agreement. Complainant alleges

further that the agency only accomplished its obligations under the

agreement after he notified the agency of his breach claim.

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 had 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 that the agency has complied with the February

12, 2007 settlement agreement. According to the settlement, the agency

agreed to change item 9 in complainant's 2005-2006 performance evaluation

from a "4" to a "9" giving him a total score of 80, within 30 days of

signing the agreement. Although the record indicates that the agency

failed to accomplish its obligation within 30 days, the Commission had

determined that to the extent the agency breached the agreement by not

performing its obligation in a timely manner, the agency cured such breach

by specifically updating complainant's performance evaluation on June

11, 2008. Previous Commission decisions have indicated that failure to

satisfy a time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent

a finding of compliance. See Lazarte v. Department of the Interior, EEOC

Appeal No. 01954274 (April 25, 1996). The Commission also notes that

the record contains no evidence of bad faith on the part of the agency.

In that regard, we find that the agency has substantially complied with

the agreement. Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach is

affirmed for the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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 11, 2008

__________________

Date

2

0120083368

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120083227