0120142581
10-28-2014
Complainant, v. Chuck Hagel, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Chuck Hagel,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Department of Defense Education Activity),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142581
Agency No. DD-FY11-045
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission claiming that the Agency was not in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Teacher (3rd grade), AD-1710-14, at the Agency's Shughart Elementary School, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The record indicated that Complainant was terminated from her position during her probationary period. Complainant filed an EEO complaint on April 10, 2012, alleging discrimination on the bases of age (60) and disability, when on February 24, 2012, the Principal terminated Complainant from her position.
On October 24, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Upon the Agency's receipt of this signed settlement agreement, the Agency agrees to pay the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) to the Complainant.
By email to the Agency dated February 11, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide her with a correct tax form. Complainant indicated that the Agency paid her $ 2,500.00, but the tax form indicated that she received $5,000.00. On March 4, 2014, Complainant contacted the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) involved in the matter. In response, the Agency provided the voucher to the AJ showing that Complainant had been paid the proper amount as agreed to in the settlement agreement. The Agency asked that Complainant work with them directly to resolve the issue of the tax Form 1099. The Agency indicated that Complainant failed to respond.
Complainant filed the instant appeal on May 19, 2014. On appeal, Complainant asserted that she was provided with the wrong Form 1099-Misc describing an amount of $5,000.00 that was paid to her and providing the wrong information to the Internal Revenue Service. She noted that the settlement agreement had the wrong date, namely it referred to settlement meetings on October 2012, when it should have been October 2013. She claimed that there were "so many other issues that have come to view that should render this failed agreement null and void." However, Complainant failed to provide any other specific examples of problems with the agreement.
In response, the Agency indicated that by October 1, 2014, it provided Complainant with a corrected Tax Form 1099-MISC, stating that Complainant was provided $2,500.00. It also noted that the error in the background section of the agreement was merely clerical in nature and had not impacted on the settlement agreement. Further, the Agency indicated that Complainant failed to provide other specific reasons for rendering the agreement "null and void." As such, the Agency requested that the Commission find that it has not breached the settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS
Although the Agency failed to issue a determination decision on Complainant's breach allegation, we will treat the Agency's submission to the Commission as its final agency decision in the interest of judicial efficiency.
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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 the Agency has not breached the settlement agreement. Complainant did not show that she was not paid the correct amount as agreed upon in the settlement agreement. Further, the Agency has provided evidence that it has corrected the Form 1099 stating that Complainant was provided with $ 2,500.00. Complainant did not argue or provide evidence that the error had an impact on her IRS tax return. Complainant did not submit any support for her assertion that there have been additional issues with the settlement agreement such that it should be rendered "null and void." Without specific evidence from Complainant in support of her claims, we conclude that Complainant has not established that the Agency breached the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's assertion that it did not breach the settlement agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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 28, 2014
__________________
Date
2
0120142581
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120142581