EEOC Appeal 2020000636

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Joey B,1
Complainant,
v.
Matthew P. Donovan,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000636
Agency No. AF2019MW1
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated September 5, 2019, 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 at the Agency’s
Air Force Reserve Command at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station Fire Department facility in
Niagara Falls, New York.
On May 8, 2019, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an
EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(5A) In exchange for the promises made by Complainant in paragraph 2 of this
agreement, the Agency agrees upon receipt of a specific request for investigation
from the Complainant on his allegations of misconduct by personnel in the Niagara
Falls Air Reserve Station Fire Department (“Fire Department”), the Agency will
direct the Civilian Personnel Office to investigate allegations involving members
of the Fire Department, which will include inappropriate relationships, prohibited
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.

2020000636	2
personnel practices in the form of providing favorable treatment to specific
individuals, time card fraud, inappropriate certificates of qualifications and the
appraisal and awards system. Proof of the direction to conduct the investigation
shall be provided to Complainant’s attorney within thirty (30) days of this
Agreement having been signed by the parties.
. . .
(5B) The Air Wing Commander will take immediate action to ensure that the selection
process for the position of Supervisory Fire Protection Inspector, GS-10, under
vacancy announcement number 6Q-ART-10420023 will be held in abeyance and
no further action will be taken to fill that position until the aforementioned
investigation in 5A above is completed by the Civilian Personnel Office and their
findings are provided to the Wing Commander.
(5c) The Agency will pay the Complainant’s attorney fees and costs in the amount of
Twelve Thousand dollars ($12,000.00).
. . .
(9) The parties agree not to disclose the terms and conditions of the Agreement or the
allegations concerning the above captioned complaint to any party unrelated to this
matter other than: (1) by Complainant, to immediate family members, attorneys,
accountants, and taxing authorities; or 2) by the Agency to any named Responsible
Management Official as well as any officials responsible for implementing or
upholding the terms of this Agreement.
. . .
(11) Nothing shall prevent the parties from disclosing any of the terms . . . when
necessary to enforce this Agreement, when ordered to do so by a court of law . . .
or as otherwise required by law or regulation (e.g. Security clearance application /
investigation.)
The Agency conducted the investigation from June 3, 2019 to July 13, 2019. The investigation
was conducted by two members of the Civilian Personnel Office as investigating officers and
involved Fire Department personnel. The investigation included a review of Complainant’s
Reference Index Binder and the Automated Time and Attendance and Promotions System
(ATAAPS entries). The investigation culminated in a 57-page report.
By letter to the Agency dated August 15, 2019, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the
settlement agreement. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to conduct a “real
and meaningful” investigation, because the Agency did not communicate with Complainant or
interview any of the witnesses or fire department members who could substantiate Complainant’s

2020000636	3
claims. In addition, Complainant also stated the Chief violated the Agreement by disclosing the
terms of the Agreement to management staff, specifically the Assistant Chiefs and Deputy Chief.
Complainant asked that the Agency be required to implement the terms of the Agreement.
In its decision on the breach claim, the Agency concluded that it had not breached the settlement
agreement. The Agency reasoned that, “the directions [Complainant] thought should have applied
to the Agency’s investigation were not included, specified, or required by paragraph 5A of the
Agreement and hence [were] not binding on the Agency.” The Agency concluded it did not violate
Paragraph 9 of the Agreement because the Chief was permitted by paragraph 9 to disclose the
terms to the management officials responsible for implementing or upholding the terms of the
Agreement.
The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant stated that the Agency failed to abide by its
promised to conduct an appropriate investigation.
In response, the Agency says the provision fails to specify or require or direct the Agency to
interview Complainant of any other specific individuals and says it is in compliance.
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 that an investigation be conducted, but it did not specify
that Complainant needed to be interviewed. The record shows that Complainant provided
extensive written documentation of his claims, which was considered in the investigation. In
addition, the Agreement permitted the release of information to management officials. For these
reasons, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s breach determination.

2020000636	4
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant’s request 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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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.

2020000636	5
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
June 16, 2020
Date