01A24029_r
11-05-2002
Sandra W. Steed , Complainant, v. Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, Department of Education Agency.
Sandra W. Steed v. Department of Education
01A24029
November 5, 2002
.
Sandra W. Steed ,
Complainant,
v.
Roderick R. Paige,
Secretary,
Department of Education
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24029
Agency No. ED-9242000
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's June 4,
2002 decision which concludes that the agency is not in breach of
the settlement agreement. On April 24, 1996, the parties resolved
complainant's complaints by entering into a settlement agreement
which provided, in pertinent part, that complainant would received
the following:
The Department agrees to place in Complainant's Official Personnel
Folder a Notification of Personnel Action, SF-50, prospectively promoting
Complainant effective no later than thirty days after all parties have
signed this agreement to a GS-1720-13, step-6, position as an Education
Program Specialist.
To provide the Complainant with training that is necessary for development
for series GS-1730 at the 13/14 level. Specifically, the Department
will defray the cost of three hours of Quantitative Methods Training
and nine hours of Education Research Methods Training at a public
postsecondary institution within the resident state and commuting area
of the complainant during non-duty hours.
Complainant, by electronic message dated April 19, 2002, alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant
argues that the agency breached the settlement agreement when she was
not promoted to the GS-14 level.
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).
The Commission finds that complainant has not shown breach of the
settlement agreement. Provision 7 of the settlement agreement requires
the agency to promote complainant to the GS-13 level. Provision 8
requires the agency to supply complainant with training necessary for
the GS 13/14 level. The Commission finds that the settlement agreement
does not require the agency to promote complainant to the GS-14 level.<1>
The agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement agreement
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 5, 2002
__________________
Date
1Because of our disposition, we do not address
whether complainant timely raised her breach claim.