01A24098_r
03-05-2003
Shirley A. Salyards, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Shirley A. Salyards v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A24098
March 5, 2003
.
Shirley A. Salyards,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24098
Agency No. 99-4238
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated June 17, 2002, finding that it was in compliance with
the July 17, 2001 settlement agreement into which the parties entered.
By letter to the agency dated February 5, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of provision 5 of the settlement agreement.
Provision 5 states as follows:
Upon receipt of sufficient medical information from the complainant,
the Agency further agrees to review the documentation provided and
make a determination as to whether complainant meets the definition
of a qualified individual with [a disability], as defined in the
regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act (29 C.F.R. � 1614.203).
If complainant is determined to fall within this definition, the Agency
further agrees to issue a written statement to the complainant to
that effect.
In its June 17, 2002 decision, the agency concluded it was not in breach
of the settlement agreement because on May 17, 2002, complainant was
provided with a copy of the determination regarding whether she was a
qualified individual with a disability as required by provision 5.
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).
The record reveals that on November 9, 2001, the agency requested medical
documentation from complainant. Complainant sent her medical information
to the Medical Center Director on December 20, 2001. In a May 16,
2002 report, the Employee Health Physician provided a determination
which stated that complainant did not meet the definition of a qualified
individual with a disability. On May 16, 2002, in an electronic mail
message, complainant and her union representative were sent copies of
the Employee Health Physician's May 16, 2002 report. Based on the
foregoing, we find that the agency did not breach provision 5 of the
settlement agreement because the agency made the determination as to
whether complainant met the definition of a qualified individual with a
disability. Complainant was also provided with the written determination.
The Commission notes that provision 5 of the settlement agreement does
not provide a date by which the agency had to make a determination as to
whether complainant met the definition of a qualified individual with
a disability and provide a written determination to complainant if she
came within the definition of a qualified individual with a disability.
Provision 5 also does not specify when complainant was to provide medical
information to the agency. Commission precedent holds that a provision
without time periods is generally understood to require compliance within
a reasonable amount of time. See Gomez v. Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05930921 (February 10, 1994). The Commission finds
that the agency made a determination regarding whether complainant was a
qualified individual with a disability within a reasonable period of time.
The agency's finding of 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
March 5, 2003
___________________
Date