01A23066_r
08-21-2002
Sherlita A. Williams, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Sherlita A. Williams v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A23066
August 21, 2002
.
Sherlita A. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23066
Agency No. 99-2114
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision, issued on April 12, 2002, finding that it was in compliance
with the terms of a April 20, 2000 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
2. The Agency shall
Reassign the complainant from the supervision and supervisory control
of [RMO 1], Associate Director of Mental Health Service Line, to the
supervision and supervisory of [RMO 2], Associate Director of Mental
Health Service Line effective immediately upon the signing of this
agreement.
By letter to the agency dated October 25, 2001, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. In a subsequent document,
complainant asserted that RMO 1 slowly "absolved me of various duties as
Secretary to the Director, Mental Health Service Line" and reassigned the
duties to Employee D, a Ward Secretary. Complainant also claimed that,
in violation of the agreement, RMO 1 "continued to act in some capacity
as my immediate supervisor." According to complainant, the settlement
agreement provided for a change in supervisor and supervisory controls
but not a change in her duties. Therefore, complainant believes that
RMO 1 was not authorized to change, reassign or remove her job duties.
In its April 12, 2002 decision, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement was not breached. The agency noted that on February 1, 2001
complainant filed a formal complaint (Case No. 200L-1912), which raised
the same issues as those contained in her allegation of breach; and
that in both instances, complainant is concerned about her assignment
of duties. According to the agency, the complaint is currently awaiting
a hearing with an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) at the EEOC New Orleans
District Office. Additionally, the agency found that the plain language
of the agreement did not address the duties complainant would perform
as a result of the reassignment. The agency reasoned that complainant
began reporting to RMO 2 on April 20, 2000, in compliance with the
settlement. As a result, complainant's duties changed "to conform to
[her] new supervisor's responsibilities" and her prior duties remained
with her previous supervisor. Therefore, the agency found that it was
in compliance with the agreement.
Complainant presents no contentions on appeal.
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).
In the instant case, complainant contends that the April 20, 2000
settlement agreement was breached when RMO 1 reassigned her duties to
another employee. Complainant believes that the settlement agreement
clearly provided for a change in supervisor but not a change in
responsibilities.
The language in the settlement agreement provides for the reassignment of
complainant from the supervisory control of RMO 1 to RMO 2. Based on
a review of the record, this shift in supervision occurred. While
complainant argues that her duties were to remain as they were under
RMO 1, this matter was not set forth in the agreement. The settlement
does not address the issue of complainant's duties and responsibilities.
If complainant wanted her duties to remain the same after the change in
supervisor, as they were under RMO 1, she should have had her intentions
reduced to writing and included in the agreement. See Jenkins-Nye
v. General Services Administration, EEOC Appeal NO. 01951903 (March
4, 1987).
The Commission finds that the settlement agreement was not breached.<1>
Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is hereby 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
August 21, 2002
__________________
Date
1 The Commission notes that, while the
reassignment matter does not constitute a breach of the settlement
agreement, the complainant appears to have also pursued the matter
through a complaint filed after the agreement was entered. In her
allegation of breach, complainant cites the depositions taken from
RMO 1 and Employee D during the investigation of Case No. 200L-1912.
Copies of the testimony reveals that both individuals were questioned
about the reassignment of complainant's duties to Employee D.