01A32838_r
08-28-2003
Tina F. Williams, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Tina F. Williams v. Department of Agriculture
01A32838
August 28, 2003
.
Tina F. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A32838
Agency No. 000276
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated March 7, 2003, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the August 12, 1999 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
No later than August 30, 1999, [the Agency agrees to] initiate a
classification audit of Complainant's position. The audit will be
conducted by [identified agency official], Position Classification
Specialist, Southern Region. The audit will be completed and the
Complainant informed in writing of the results no later than September
30, 1999. If the results of the audit recommend upgrade to the GS-13
level, the recommendation will be presented to the R-9 Leadership Team for
decision whether to promote the Complainant due to accretion of duties
or to reassign the GS-13 level responsibilities to another employee.
If the decision of the Leadership Team is to promote, process a promotion
action to be effective within 30 days of the decision.
By letter to the agency dated December 16, 1999, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that
the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the September 21, 1999 report of the desk audit, contained
contradictory findings and recommendations. Complainant claimed that her
supervisor gave inaccurate information to the classification specialist,
among other things, that complainant administers only six contracts,
when in fact, she administers nine contracts. Complainant alleged that
her supervisor amended her old position description rather than revising
the new one she had prepared, so that her grade level would not change
and complainant would not be promoted.
In its March 7, 2003 decision, the agency concluded that in accordance
with the settlement agreement, the audit of complainant's position had
been performed and the classification specialist found complainant's
position was assigned the correct grade level. The agency noted the
settlement agreement did not promise any particular outcome to the desk
audit. The agency found, therefore, 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 concur with the agency. We observe that the
settlement agreement does not specify that complainant will be promoted
or that the agency was compelled to accept the position description she
created for her position. Complainant has failed to show that the agency
has acted in bad faith in implementing the agreement. We find the agency
has fulfilled its duty under the terms of the settlement agreement and
that complainant has failed to show a breach of the settlement agreement
occurred.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's decision that no breach of the August
12, 1999 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
August 28, 2003
__________________
Date