01A10675_r
03-06-2002
Gary Adams, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.
Gary Adams v. Department of Defense
01A10675
March 6, 2002
.
Gary Adams,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10675
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision
by the agency dated July 21, 2000, finding that it did not breach
the terms of the February 1, 2000 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that, in
consideration of complainant's withdrawal of his informal complaint,
the agency agrees:
(a) To convert complainant's current 1106-06 position (Non-Automated)
to a Management Assistant, GS-0344-06 position, assigned to DCMC
Baltimore-Norfolk (DCMDE-GTN), and reassign complainant into a Management
Assistant, GS-0344-06 position, effective January 30, 2000.
By letter to the agency dated April 17, 2000, complainant claimed that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency reinstate his complaint for further processing from the
point processing ceased. Specifically, complainant claimed that although
he was reassigned to the position of Management Assistant, GS-0344-06,
many of the major duties enumerated in the position description for his
new position, were the same as those in his original position, and these
duties caused mental and physical problems.
In its July 21, 2000 decision, the agency concluded that it reassigned
complainant to the position of Management Assistant, GS-0344-06,
effective January 31, 2000, in compliance with the settlement agreement.
The agency added that the agreement does not speak to the duties assigned
to the Management Assistant position.
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, there is no debate that complainant was assigned
to the Management Assistant, GS-3044-06 position, as required under
the settlement agreement. Complainant maintains that despite his
reassignment, the intent of the settlement agreement was not fulfilled
because some of the duties from his old position that caused him mental
and physical problems were also some of the duties involved in his
newly assigned position. Complainant does not assert that the agency
in any way altered the position description for the Management Assistant
position to transfer the duties that initially hindered complainant into
his new position. There is no need in the instant case to resort to
extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement required that the agency reassign complainant
to the Management Assistant, GS-3044-06 position, and the agency has
fulfilled that provision of the settlement agreement.<1> Therefore, the
agency's decision finding no breach of the February 1, 2000 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 6, 2002
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1To the extent that complainant may be alleging that the agency has
denied him a reasonable accommodation in his new position, he must
contact an EEO Counselor (if he has not already made such contact) in
order to file a separate discrimination complaint. The Commission does
not address whether such contact would be timely.