0120152236
04-27-2017
Dalton C.,1 Complainant, v. John F. Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dalton C.,1
Complainant,
v.
John F. Kelly,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120152236
Agency Nos. HSTSA006912011; HSTSA017812011
EEOC Hearing Nos. 480-2012-00384X, 480-2-12-00385X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated June 3, 2015, finding that it was 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 compliance action, Complainant worked as a Transportation Security Officer at the Agency's LAX facility in Los Angeles, California.
On April 17, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(B1) The Agency will remove the Letter of Counseling dated July 23, 2010, from Complainant's local personnel file(s);
(B2) For ten weeks...Complainant will report to a temporary assignment;
(B3) Complainant will have an opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion with a member of TSA/LAX senior management, as selected by the FSD;
(B4) Upon completion of the above terms, Complainant will receive the agreed upon letter [attached as Exhibit A to the Agreement]; and
(C3) The Parties agree this Agreement constitutes the final and complete agreement of the Parties. No other promises are binding unless they are in writing and signed by the Parties.
On June 7, 2013, the Agency notified Complainant that, in accordance with the Administrative Judge's Order dismissing the case pursuant to the settlement agreement, DHS was "closing its file and terminating administrative processing of this matter."
By letter to the Agency dated April 17, 2015, Complainant informed the Agency that "TSA/LAX is not honoring its terms to the settlement." He also stated that he believed that he was being retaliated against. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the Agreement when the Agency denied his request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He stated that he agreed to the settlement agreement because he understood that he would be allowed to use FMLA. He asserts that the Agency is now denying his requests and demanding "intrusive and unreasonable details of [his medical] condition."
Our records indicate that an appeal was docketed for Complainant on this matter on May 5, 2015. The Agency had not yet issued its decision.
The Agency concluded, in its June 3, 2015 Breach Decision, that there was no breach. The Agency reasoned: 1) that the Agency complied with the terms of the Agreement, 2) the Agreement did not include any language referencing FMLA leave, and 3) Complainant was alleging new claims on appeal and the matter should be remanded to the Agency for investigation of those new claims.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant advised the Commission that he was "submitting this amendment to the claim of retaliation" that was the subject of his previously closed complaints. He appears to be raising a new claim of retaliation and raises concerns regarding his medical condition.
The Agency maintains that the appeal should be dismissed and the matter remanded because Complainant was raising new claims, that are unrelated to the Settlement Agreement or his breach claim. The Agency asserts that it is undisputed that the Agency complied with the terms of the Agreement.
ANALYSIS
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, the Agreement required the Agency to execute certain steps. The Agreement did not reference FMLA. By its terms, the Agreement constitutes a full and complete statement of the parties understanding. It also expressly stated that "no other promises are binding unless they are in writing and signed by the Parties." Complainant does not dispute that the Agency carried out the steps actually specified in the Agreement. We cannot enforce terms that were not made a part of the Agreement.
We find, therefore, that Complainant has not shown that the Agency breached the Agreement.
Finally, to the extent that Complainant wishes to address any new claims of discrimination and / or retaliation, he should initiate EEO counseling with the Agency as those claims must be addressed in a separate complaint.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's Final Determination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 tends 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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 27, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120152236
5
0120152236