While a settlement agreement may not be sufficiently described here, we give enough examples to learn from this post. The plain meaning rule is discussed.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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. Department of Defense, 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. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990).
The Plain Meaning Rule and the four corners
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 v. United States Postal Service, 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).
Ultimately, the complainant has the burden of demonstrating noncompliance by the agency. See Moore v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05930694 (April 7, 1994).
