0120113680
11-21-2012
Joyce K. Huber, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Joyce K. Huber,
Complainant,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113680
Agency No. HQ-11-0337-SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a Final Decision by the Agency sent to Complainant on July 26, 2011,1 finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's determination that no breach of the identified Settlement Agreement occurred.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to her complaint, Complainant worked as a Management Analyst at the Agency's facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On April 29, 2011, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
4. In consideration of the obligations contained herein, [the Agency] agrees as follows:
a. To remove the February 8, 2011 "For The Record" from [Complainant's] SF-7B immediately following execution of this Settlement Agreement;
. . . .
The record indicates that on May 5, 2011, 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 while the Agency had removed the identified document from her SF-7B file, the contents, circumstances and incidents described in the "For The Record" document were later referenced in Complainant's mid-year performance appraisal and accompanying narrative.
In its Final Decision, the Agency concluded that Complainant herself admitted that the Agency had removed the identified document as agreed and that nothing in the Settlement Agreement provided that Complainant's mid-year performance appraisal would not refer to the circumstances and events that precipitated the memorandum in question. The Agency found that no breach of the Agreement occurred as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 the Agency properly found that no breach of the Settlement Agreement occurred as alleged. Complainant is not claiming that the "For Your Record" document was not timely removed from the SF-7B as per the Agreement. We find that the Agreement did not expressly state that the Agency could not consider the facts contained in the identified memorandum in support of her mid-year performance appraisal.
CONCLUSION
We therefore AFFIRM the Agency's Final Decision, finding no breach of the Settlement Agreement occurred as alleged.
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
November 21, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The Agency's Decision is undated, but appears to have been transmitted to Complainant as an attachment to an electronic mail message on July 26, 2011.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120113680
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113680