01993608
11-02-2000
Phyllis Watson, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.
Phyllis Watson v. Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency)
01993608
11-02-00
.
Phyllis Watson,
Complainant,
v.
William S. Cohen,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993608
Agency Nos. JQ-99-008, JQ-00-008B
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated February 16, 1999, finding that it was
in compliance with the terms of the May 13, 1998 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.<1> See EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement was signed by complainant, four of her
co-workers, and two supervisors. It provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Management agrees to provide and repair all locks at all desks
within the office. Employees will be at each others desks for only work
related reasons such as [to] use the computer or to do their work when
the employee is absent.
If employees are given multiple projects, management or the person
in charge will let the employee know what priority each task has.
Management will also make a concerted effort to give all employees
information about any change in office policy or workload.
Management agrees to provide Windows training for office employees as
the software is installed.
Management and the employees agree to attend a teambuilding training
course which give the Myers Briggs test to promote professional and
personal growth. This will take place within 90 days of the signing of
this agreement.
The parties agree not to file additional EEO complaints, grievances,
or appeals based on events occurring prior to the execution of the
Resolution Agreement.
The parties agree to accept as full settlement/resolution of the dispute,
the relief agreed upon as complete satisfaction of any and all claims
and demands.
On November 10, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint (DLA#
JQ-99-008) alleging the same circumstances and incidents that formed
the basis of the informal complaint that was resolved on May 13, 1998.
Complainant alleged in the attachment to her formal complaint that
mediation was �not the forum for handling the issues in [her] complaint.�
In a letter of clarification dated December 10, 1998, complainant alleged
that the agency had breached the settlement agreement by not doing the
things stipulated to in it. She stated further that ninety days after
the settlement agreement was executed, she left the job on leave without
pay to move to a new duty station in another geographical location.
In its February 16, 1999 FAD, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement had not been breached. The agency commented that the record
showed that management provided the job information, the locks, the
testing, and the team building training promised by the settlement
agreement to the individuals who remained at the job site. The agency
also found that the subject matter of DLA# JQ-99-008 was resolved by
the May 13, 1998, Mediation Resolution Agreement, and dismissed it for
stating the same claims as those already decided by the agency.
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, we find no breach of the settlement agreement.
Complainant has not demonstrated that the agency failed to do those things
stipulated to in the settlement agreement, and the record contains no
evidence of such a breach. We find further that the agency correctly
dismissed complainant's November 10, 1998 complaint (DLA# JQ-99-008),
under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)), for stating the same claims as those
previously decided by the agency. Once complainant signed the settlement
agreement, in which she �agreed not to file additional EEO complaints,
grievances, or appeals based on events occurring prior to the execution
of the Resolution Agreement,� she was precluded from bringing these
claims in an EEO complaint.
The decision of the agency is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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
__11-02-00________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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 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.