01A31788_r
10-20-2003
Terry R. Sumner, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Terry R. Sumner v. Department of the Treasury
01A31788
October 20, 2003
.
Terry R. Sumner,
Complainant,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31788
Agency No. TD02-2073T
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging the agency
failed to comply with the terms of the March 27, 2002 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The Agency agrees to the following:
. . . .
Schedule and make arrangements for a meeting with the Complainant and his
Territorial Manager to discuss travel voucher issues. The SB/SE Lead
Budget Analyst for Travel will be made available for both the Complainant
and Territorial Manager for technical expertise. This meeting will
occur within 30 calendar days of the signing of this settlement agreement.
Any open issues from the meeting as discussed in (b) above, will be
raised to the Area Director for resolution by either the Complainant or
the Territorial Manager, within 14 calendar days from the date of the
meeting as indicated in (b) above.
The Complainant agrees to the following:
. . . .
Participate in the meeting as discussed in 6(b)<1> above.
Raise any open issues from the meeting as discussed in 6(b) above to
the Area Director for resolution, within the timeframes as discussed
in 6(c) above.
By letter to the agency dated December 2, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency reinstate his complaint. Specifically, complainant alleged
that the agency failed to raise any open issues with the Area Director
within 14 calendar days from the meeting described in provision 5(b).
Complainant acknowledges that the meeting required by provision 5(b)
occurred. However, complainant alleges the Territorial Manager waited
until November 6, 2002, to raise unresolved issues by issuing complainant
an official reprimand for failure to properly prepare his travel vouchers.
Complainant states that the reprimand concerned travel vouchers from
February 2001 through August 2001, which were the same travel vouchers
at issue in his settled complaint.
In the absence of any determination by the agency, we will deem the agency
to have determined that no breach of the settlement agreement occurred.
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 that no breach of the settlement agreement
has occurred as alleged. The record reveals that on May 2, 2002,
complainant's Territorial Manager directed a memorandum to complainant,
memorializing the meeting held on April 23, 2002, in compliance
with paragraph 5(b) of the March 27, 2002 settlement agreement.
This memorandum identified several travel vouchers that the agency had
agreed to approve, identified numerous deficiencies in other vouchers
and detailed the steps complainant needed to complete for the purpose
of approving the remaining unapproved travel vouchers. Nothing in the
settlement agreement precluded the agency from issuing discipline in
connection with the disputed travel documents. We therefore find that
no breach of the agreement has occurred as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's implied determination that no breach
of the settlement agreement occurred.
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
October 20, 2003
__________________
Date
1The settlement agreement contains no paragraph
numbered "6." From the context, we conclude that the references to 6(b)
are actually to paragraph 5(b).