01970027
10-08-1998
Juanita P. Jojola-Jemison, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Juanita P. Jojola-Jemison v. United States Postal Service
01970027
October 8, 1998
Juanita P. Jojola-Jemison, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01970027
) Agency No. 5S-1234-92
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DECISION ON APPEAL
INTRODUCTION
Appellant filed an appeal with the Commission from a final decision of
the agency concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq. The final agency decision was received by appellant on
August 26, 1996. The appeal was postmarked on September 24, 1996.
Accordingly, the appeal is timely and is accepted in accordance with
EEOC Order No. 960, as amended. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a).
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the agency erred in not awarding appellant compensatory damages in
connection with a previous finding of discrimination by the Commission.
BACKGROUND
Appellant filed a complaint in which she alleged that her supervisor
had been harassing her because of her gender since 1983. In particular,
she alleged that between 1990 and April 1992, her supervisor stood
behind her at her work area and stared at her as she cased her mail,
which caused her to feel humiliated. In Jojola-Jemison v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942078 (April 18, 1996),
the Commission found that the supervisor's conduct toward appellant
between 1990 and April 1992 constituted harassment on the basis of sex.
As part of its order for relief, the Commission ordered the agency to
accept and process appellant's claim for compensatory damages.<1>
In an investigative affidavit dated May 6, 1996, the agency asked
appellant to provide:
1. a detailed description of the nature and extent of any injury or
condition for which she was claiming compensation;
2. a precise explanation of how the agency caused the injury or
condition;
3. the identity of any health care professional who has stated that her
injury or condition was caused by the conduct of the agency; and
4. the identity of any health care provider who has examined or treated
her for the injury or condition in question, as well as the dates and
descriptions of any treatment received.
The notice also specified that objective evidence of losses is required
for non-pecuniary expenses resulting from the incidents described in
appellant's complaint.
Appellant's evidence consists solely of her own affidavit, which
she prepared in response to the agency's damages inquiry that had
been ordered in EEOC Appeal No. 01942078. Appellant stated that she
had incurred numerous injuries as a result of the discrimination
and harassment that she had been subject to, including loss of job
security, damage to marital relationship, damage to personal reputation,
damage to professional reputation, damage to overall health, including
sleeplessness, anxiety, depression and stress, loss of sense of physical
and psychological well-being, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, and
damage to personal, job and professional relationships.
Appellant further stated that her problems with the station manager in
regards to gender harassment dated back to 1983. Appellant testified that
at the end of the station manager's hearing testimony, the manager glared
at her in a particularly frightening way. Specifically, she stated:
This so upset me that I was unable to return to work, lost sleep,
suffered severe anxiety and depression. My personal physician prescribed
medication for my condition and referred me to a psychologist for therapy.
I remained in the care of the psychologist for several months until my
situation improved....My reputation has been ruined due to the station
manager's lies and false accusations....My feelings about my employer have
been irreparably damaged due to their negligence and even malice toward
my complaints.....I am asking for compensatory damages for non-pecuniary
damages including emotional suffering and harm, pain, humiliation,
damage to my reputation, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of live,
marital strain...the aggregate amount of which is $300,000 dollars.
Appellant further stated:
The agency caused these injuries through negligence, malicious or reckless
indifference to my federally protected rights.
When asked to identify any health care professionals who were
treating her, she gave the name of a psychiatrist who prescribed
anti-depressant/anxiety medication in September 1993 and referred her to
a psychologist. She indicated that the psychologist treated her between
September 1993 through Spring 1994.
After reviewing appellant's affidavit, the agency issued a final decision
in which it concluded that appellant failed to prove that she was entitled
to compensatory damages.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To prevail in a claim for compensatory damages, appellant must establish
a causal connection between the station manager's discriminatory conduct
and the harm that she suffered. See Browne v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 01944256 (July 17, 1995). Appellant testified that she
experienced severe anxiety and depression as a result of the supervisor's
conduct. She stated that her marital relationship, personal reputation,
and professional standing had been damaged. She also stated, however,
that her father had passed away and that she was taking medication
for pre-menopausal and circulatory problems. She does not specify the
date of her father's passing or the dates that she began taking her
prescription medication. We also note that the conduct found to be
discriminatory occurred up to April 1992, but that appellant did not
present any documents or testimony indicating that she sought medical
or psychological treatment before September 1993, nearly eighteen months
later. We find that the imprecise evidence and intervening factors set
forth in appellant's affidavit weakens the causal connection between her
emotional distress and the supervisor's conduct, but does not break it.
Appellant is entitled to an award of compensatory damages for emotional
distress, and we must now determine the amount of that award. We note
that appellant has not presented any supporting medical documentation
from either the psychiatrist or the psychologist that emotional distress
was attributable to the humiliation that she experienced as a result of
being closely scrutinized by the supervisor. Although such evidence
is not essential to the recovery of compensatory damages, its absence
may affect the amount of the award. Lawrence v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (April 18, 1996).
The Commission has held that damage awards should be consistent with
amounts awarded in similar cases. Findlay v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942985 (April 29, 1997). An award of $500 in
compensatory damages for emotional distress was found to be appropriate in
which the only evidence presented by the plaintiff to support his claim
was his own testimony that he was cranky with his family and friends,
that he felt stressful and embarrassed, and that he had many sleepless
nights as a result. Kuntz v. City of New Haven, 3 AD Cases 1590, 1592
(D. Conn.), aff'd without opinion 29 F.3d 622 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 115
S.Ct. 667 (1994). The plaintiff in Kuntz completely lacked corroborating
evidence. Similarly, in the instant case, the only evidence that appellant
presents in support of her claim is her own statement that she suffered
from severe anxiety and depression as a result of the actions of her
supervisor. In addition to lacking documentation from health care
providers, the record lacks corroborating statements from appellant's
family members, friends or colleagues. Moreover, as previously noted,
there are no indications that she sought medical treatment or therapy
for nearly a year and a half after the harassment ended. Under these
circumstances, we find that an award of $500 is appropriate, and that
the record is insufficent to justify a higher award. We will therefore
order the agency to pay appellant $500 in compensatory damages.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons,
the Commission REVERSES the agency's final decision denying appellant's
claim for compensatory damages.
ORDER (D1092)
The agency shall issue appellant a check for $500, representing an
award of compensatory damages which resulted from her supervisor's
discriminatory harassment between 1990 and April 1992.
The agency shall also submit a report of compliance, as provided in the
statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision."
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of
the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503 (a). The appellant also has the right
to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503 (g). Alternatively,
the appellant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File
A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to
the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1993). If the
appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,
the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court. It is the position of the Commission that 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. You should be aware, however, that courts in some
jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner
suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS from the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your
civil action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN
THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision
or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the
jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. In the alternative,
you may file a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR
DAYS of the date you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your
appeal with the Commission. 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.
Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:
OCT 8, 1998
_______________ ______________________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
1The Commission stated in Appeal No. 01942078 that objective evidence
of compensatory damages may include a statement by appellant describing
her emotional distress and statements from witnesses, both on and off
the job, describing the distress. We also stated that such statements
should include detailed information on physical or behavioral
manifestations of the distress, information on the duration of the
distress, and examples of how the distress affected appellant day to
day, both on and off the job. Carle v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993).