EEOC Appeal 2020000119

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carly O,1
Complainant,
v.
Chad F. Wolf,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Customs and Border Protection),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000119
Agency No. HS-CBP-27113-2016
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 as a General
Attorney, GS-0905-14, at the Agency’s Academy Legal Staff, US Border Patrol Academic facility
in Artesia, New Mexico.
On April 13, 2018, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an
EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1a) 	Complainant’s signature on this Agreement constitutes her withdrawal of
the above-referenced complaint with prejudice.
. . .
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.

2020000119	2
(1e) 	Complainant enters into this Agreement with the Agency knowingly,
voluntarily, and with full knowledge of its terms, and absent any coercion
or duress.
(1f) 	Complainant fully understands all of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and has been given a reasonable amount of time to consider this
Agreement and to thoroughly discuss all aspects of this Agreement with her
representative, if any. Complainant understands that she may consult an
attorney prior to signing this Agreement and Complainant understands that
she is advised to consult with an attorney prior to executing this Agreement.
(2) 	In exchange for the promises of Complainant, the Agency, subject to the
conditions and limits set forth herein, agrees to:
a. 	Laterally reassign Complainant from the Office of Deputy Assistant
Chief Counsel (Training) at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) located in Artesia, New Mexico to the Office of
Assistant Chief Counsel (Training) at the FLETC located in Glynco,
Georgia….This 	lateral 	reassignment 	will 	not 	adversely 	impact
Complainant’s career progression within the Agency. Complainant will
report to the Glynco, Georgia office no later than April 30, 2018.
. . .
(3c) 	This Agreement contains the full and complete agreement between the
parties. No promises or representations other than those stated herein have
been made by either party.
By letter to the Agency dated July 18, 2019, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach
of the settlement agreement. 	Complainant stated that the Agency breached the language from
Paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement that stated “This lateral reassignment will not adversely impact
Complainant’s career progression within the Agency.” Complainant argued that the CBP had not
provided her with “professional development” opportunities to help advance her career.
Complainant filed directly with the Commission, thirty days after she submitted her breach claim
to the Agency and after receiving the Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP)’s response to the
breach allegation. Thereafter, the Agency issued its decision on September 5, 2019.
The Agency concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency breached the settlement
agreement. The Agency reasoned that, on April 29, 2018, the Agency reassigned Complainant
from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel (Training) located in Artesia, New Mexico
to the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Training) at FLETC located in Glynco, Georgia. At the
time of the signing of the Agreement, Complainant was a General Attorney, GS-905-14, Step 1.
The Agency states that her career progression has not been adversely affected, as evidenced by her
increase in her salary and Time-Off Awards.

2020000119	3
The Agency noted that there was no requirement under the terms of the Settlement Agreement that
Complainant be provided with “professional development” opportunities to advance her career.
Nevertheless, the Agency concluded that she had received more varied instructional opportunities
and assignments, after the Agreement was reached.
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 the Agency laterally reassign Complainant to a
specific identified position no later than April 30, 2018. It is undisputed that the Agency met that
obligation, as set forth in paragraph 2. That was the only provision at issue in this appeal. There
is no evidence that Complainant’s career progression had been adversely affected by the lateral
reassignment.
For these reasons, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency breached the decision.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0620)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the complainant or the
agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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.

2020000119	4
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO)
within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration
elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed
together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days
from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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).
Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in
support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx.
Alternatively, complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to
P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, complainant’s request to reconsider
shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the
applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or
statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless
complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service
is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for
reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of
the request. 	Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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.

2020000119	5
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
November 4, 2020
Date