EEOC Appeal 2020001413

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Wes S., 1
Complainant,
v.
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Office of the Chief Financial Officer),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001413
Agency No. OCFO201500596
DECISION
On December 18, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission)
docketed an appeal concerning the Agency’s compliance with a settlement agreement into which
the parties entered on July 11, 2016.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this action, Complainant worked as an Information Technology
Specialist, GS-14, at the Agency’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, National Finance Center
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
On July 11, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
several EEO matters. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4C) 	Within sixty (60) days of the last date this agreement is signed, the Agency
shall provide eight (8) hours of EEO training to the named responsible
managers as to EEO Sensitivity and appropriate Management Behavior.
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.

2020001413	2
This same settlement agreement has been the subject of prior Commission decisions. In Wes S. v.
Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181060 (July 19, 2018), we found that while
some training was provided, it was unclear whether all of the management officials who were to
receive training under the Agreement actually received the training. We remanded the matter for
an additional inquiry by the Agency regarding the number of hours and identification of the
managers who received the training and ordered the Agency to issue a new determination decision
on compliance. After the Agency did not issue a required determination decision, in Wes S. v.
Department of Agriculture (Office of the Chief Financial Officer), EEOC Petition No. 2019002871
(September 18, 2019), we ordered the Agency to provide Complainant with the option to elect
specific performance of the terms of the Agreement or the reinstatement of his underlying EEO
complaint.
It appears that Complainant elected specific performance of the terms of the agreement. However,
by appeal filed on December 18, 2019, as well by letter to the Agency, 2 Complainant again alleged
that the Agency failed to provide appropriate training to the managers as required by paragraph
4C of the Agreement.
In response to the appeal, the Agency submitted additional compliance reports which included
documentation of the names of the officials taking the courses, the dates of the courses, the hours
for the courses and included the Certificates of Completion. In its January 22, 2020 compliance
report, the Agency concluded that it was in full compliance with the terms of the settlement
agreement.
Complainant has now acknowledged that the Agency provided training to four named managers,
but he asserts that the Agency did not show that a fifth manager was also trained. Complainant
also states that he did not see in the slides of the training “the basics of his complaint [that]
managers may not hit employees, cannot release medical records, cannot deny requests for leave
based on religious preferences.”
In response, the Agency maintains that it has provided documentation to show that it complied
with the requirements of the Agreement and that the fifth manager was not named.
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).
2 While the Agency never had the opportunity to issue a final decision on Complainant’s December
18, 2019 “third” breach claim because Complainant filed his appeal on the same day, we will
consider its response to this appeal as its final determination of compliance.

2020001413	3
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 eight hours of mandatory training of the “named
responsible managers.” Four officials were identified as the named managers. The record now
includes the sign-in sheets for trainings that took place after the execution of the Agreement and
includes the certificates of completion for the named managers. We find that the record before us
now contains sufficient documentation of the training that was provided, including the dates, the
title or focus of the training, the hours of training, the names of the attendees, and the Certificates
of Completion. Finally, we note that to the extent that Complainant is asserting that the training
did not provide “the basics” to cover his specific claims, the terms of the Agreement required
“EEO Training” and the parties did not elaborate on the specifics of the training envisioned by the
parties at the time of execution of the Agreement. We therefore conclude that the Agency has now
provided adequate proof of compliance with paragraph 4C of the Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding that it has cured any breach and is now in full
compliance with the requirements of the July 11, 2016 Agreement with Complainant.
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.

2020001413	4
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.
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.

2020001413	5
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
September 3, 2020
Date