0120112254
12-16-2011
Rita Crawford-Graham, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Rita Crawford-Graham,
Complainant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112254
Agency No. 97-0058
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging that the
Agency was not in compliance with the terms of a 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
Complainant previously worked as a Library Technician in the John Cochran
Unit at the Agency’s Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri. On March
2, 2011, Complainant requested that the Commission review a “final
decision” regarding her discrimination claims. Complainant alleged
that the Agency had breached a settlement agreement; however, Complainant
failed to provide a copy of the settlement agreement or explain how the
Agency had not complied. Instead, Complainant submitted an April 23,
1997 memorandum from the Agency’s then-Acting Director proposing terms
for a potential settlement agreement. In addition, Complainant included
an investigative summary of an EEO complaint she filed on August 22,
1996, which she claims showed a finding of discrimination in her favor.
Further, Complainant submitted an August 17, 2005 Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) decision finding that the Agency did not discriminate
against her when she was removed from her position on October 6, 2000.
In its May 6, 2011 response, the Agency affirmed that it had no
record of a settlement agreement between the two parties and noted
that Complainant failed to provide a copy of the purported settlement
agreement. The Agency noted that the April 23, 1997 letter was a
settlement offer and there was no evidence that Complainant accepted
those terms or that such an agreement was ever reduced to writing.
Even if such an agreement had been reduced to writing, the Agency added
that Complainant was terminated in 2000 and thus, the time for filing
a breach action expired long ago. Finally, the Agency maintained that
the August 2005 MSPB decision provided Complainant with appeal rights
to the Commission and since Complainant failed to appeal in 2005, she
cannot do so now some six years later. Accordingly, the Agency requests
that the Commission dismiss Complainant’s appeal.
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 shall be
binding on both parties. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603 provides
that any settlement shall be in writing, signed by both parties, and
identify the claims involved.
The Commission determines that Complainant failed to establish that
a breach of settlement agreement occurred. Specifically, Complainant
has produced no evidence that the parties ever entered into a settlement
agreement. The only evidence Complainant submitted regarding any possible
settlement agreement between the parties was an April 23, 1997 memorandum
from the Agency’s then-Acting Director proposing possible terms of a
potential settlement agreement. There is no evidence that Complainant
agreed to those terms or that the parties ever came to any agreement
whatsoever. Given that the record contains no evidence of any written
agreement signed by both parties, there is no basis for the Commission
to find that a valid, enforceable settlement agreement exists.
Finally, to the extent that Complainant is appealing the August 2005
MSPB decision, such matters are barred by the doctrine of laches.
The Commission has consistently held that a Complainant must act with due
diligence in the pursuit of her claim or the doctrine of laches may apply.
See O'Dell v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05901130
(Dec. 27, 1990). The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under
which an individual’s failure to pursue diligently her course of
action could bar her claim. The MSPB decision gave Complainant appeal
rights to the Commission within 30 days of receipt of its decision.
Complainant has waited almost six years to challenge the MSPB decision.
On appeal, Complainant has presented no persuasive arguments or evidence
warranting an extension of the time limit. As a result, the Commission
finds that the doctrine of laches supports dismissal of Complainant’s
appeal of the MSPB decision. Finally, the Commission notes that
the submitted investigative summary was not a final Agency action or
decision in accordance with our regulations, e.g., it did not contain the
required rights of appeal nor identify itself as a final decision. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.110. Accordingly, Complainant’s appeal is DISMISSED.
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 (Nov. 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
December 16, 2011
Date
2
0120112254
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120112254