01a40943
10-19-2005
Randy A. Kallauner, Complainant, v. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.
Randy A. Kallauner v. Department of Energy
01A40943
October 19, 2005
.
Randy A. Kallauner,
Complainant,
v.
Samuel W. Bodman,
Secretary,
Department of Energy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A40943
Agency No. 00 (54)SPR
Hearing No. 270-2002-09083X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal regarding the remedies set forth in
the agency's final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
For the following reasons, the Commission affirms in part and reverses
in part the agency's final decision.
Background
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against him on
the basis of sex when he was not selected for the position of Lead
Accountant, GS-510-13, at the Strategic Petroleum Project Management
Office, Office of the Assistant Project Manager, Financial Planning and
Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana on or about August 29, 1999.
The allegation was investigated by the agency and complainant requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing,
the AJ issued a decision on September 24, 2003 finding discrimination.
The AJ, inter alia, ordered the agency to offer complainant the Lead
Accountant position, or a substantially equivalent position, effective
the date the selectee encumbered the position, as well as back pay with
interest and other benefits, retroactive to that date. The agency issued
a final decision (FAD) adopting the AJ's decision, and complainant filed
the instant appeal.
Complainant specifies that he is not appealing the finding of
discrimination. Instead, he maintains, he is appealing the remedy.
He maintains that the agency has not paid mileage and toll expenses
accrued by complainant and his representative, photocopying expenses and
other expenses relating to the instant appeal, and interest on back pay.
In addition, he seeks payment of $11,895.95 in past and future medical
expenses. He further disputes the FAD's decision adopting the AJ's
denial of payment to his non-attorney representative and the award of
nonpecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000.00. Finally,
complainant notes that the agency did make partial payments on December
12, 2003 and February 19, 2004 but did not specify what the payments
were for. He states that he is therefore unable to more specifically
identify which items he is appealing since he does not know which items
have been paid.
The agency argues initially that complainant's appeal brief is untimely.
The Agency further argues that the AJ's decision is supported by
substantial evidence and requests that we deny complainant's appeal.
Specifically, the agency contends that the AJ correctly found that
complainant's non-attorney representative is not entitled to reimbursement
for travel expenses. Furthermore, the agency argues, complainant
has not submitted sufficient evidence of any payments he made to his
non-attorney representative. Regarding reimbursement for complainant's
own expenditures on mileage and tolls, the agency maintains that it has
already paid complainant the sum of $2,009.38 to cover such expenditures.
Regarding photocopying costs, the agency argues that complainant has not
provided satisfactory proof of such costs. Regarding medical expenses,
the agency argues that complainant's evidence is being presented for the
first time on appeal and should not be accepted. Furthermore, the agency
argues, future medical expenses are included in the nonpecuniary damages
award. Finally, the agency argues that the AJ's nonpecuniary damages
award is supported by substantial evidence and should not be increased.
Analysis and Findings
As an initial matter, we note that we find no reason to disturb the
findings of the AJ and the FAD. When, as here, discrimination is found,
the agency must provide complainants with a remedy that constitutes full,
make-whole relief to restore them as nearly as possible to the position
they would have occupied absent the discrimination. Franks v. Bowman
Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Adesanya v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01933395 (July 21, 1994). Regarding the agency's
initial argument that complainant's brief is untimely and should not be
accepted, we note that complainant was granted an extension until March
16, 2004 to submit a brief and that his brief was received on that date.
We therefore find that his brief was timely.
Mileage and Tolls
Regarding the issue of mileage and toll expenses accrued by complainant,
we note that complainant's representative testified at the damages
hearing that he had been representing complainant since September 1999.
See Damages Hearing Transcript (HT) p. 104. Complainant submitted
into the record a signed contract establishing that complainant's
representative began representing complainant on September 15, 1999.
See Id. and p. 119, and HT Exhibit 20. We therefore find that the
AJ's finding that the representative's representation began in January
2002 to not be supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we
find complainant is entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses from
September 15, 1999. According to the evidence submitted by complainant,
he is entitled to $1,426.19, Exhibit 22, for personal travel expenses such
as mileage and tolls. Regarding reimbursement for travel expenses for
complainant's representative, we find that the AJ correctly denied all
such expenses on the grounds that they were not incurred by complainant.
The agency contends it has already paid complainant $2,009.38 for all
travel expenses and further, that it inadvertently overpaid complainant
in the amount of $1,360.00. Complainant maintains that he has received
certain payments but that the agency has not specified what the payments
were for. If the agency has already paid complainant $2,009.38 for
all travel expenses, we find that complainant was only overpaid $583.19
($2,009.38 paid - $1,426.19 complainant is entitled to = $583.19).
Photocopying Expenses and other Litigation Expenses
Complainant seeks $549.35 as reimbursement for photocopying expenses.
Exhibit 23. The agency argues that such expenses should not be paid
because complainant submitted handwritten receipts prepared after
the fact and no contemporaneous documentation to support his claim.
Complainant responds that he was unable to provide contemporaneous
receipts because he used commercial copy machines which do not provide
receipts. Following a review of the record, we find complainant's
photocopying expenses to be reasonable.
Regarding other litigation expenses, complainant requests expenses
from November 6, 2003, which is the date the agency was directed to
comply with the AJ's Order, to �the date when this appeal process is
completed.� Complainant's Appeal Brief pp. 40-1. Complainant further
states that such expenses are being incurred because of the agency's
continued delay in complying with the AJ's Order and failure to provide
an explanation of those payments already made. Complainant points
out that the total tally for such expenses cannot be completed until
after the appeal process is complete and requests permission to submit
an exact itemization of such expenses, with supporting documentation,
after the completion of the appeal process. The agency on appeal is
silent regarding the issue of such expenses. The Commission finds that
complainant's request is reasonable.
Interest on Back Pay and on Litigation Expenses
Complainant maintains that the agency indicated that on February 19,
2004 he was paid a gross of $22,945.66 in back pay, and deposited a net
of $11,034.91 in his bank account, but that the agency has not provided
an explanation of what was included in the total amount, nor has the
agency provided the methodology by which the amount was calculated.
Complainant further contends that a subsequent pay statement indicated
that �the total amount included $76.03 in interest, but it did not
say what it was for, i.e. on the back pay or on the litigation costs,
or how it was calculated. The amount appears to [sic] small to be the
interest on the back pay (4 � years).� Complainant's Appeal Brief,
p. 40. Complainant further noted on several occasions that the agency
has not provided a detailed breakdown explaining those payments it has
made to date. The agency on appeal does not address complainant's claims
regarding back pay or interest.
The AJ ordered the agency to pay interest on the back pay award.
The agency did not appeal the AJ's decision and the agency's FAD noted
that the agency would pay interest on the back pay award. To the extent
the agency has not paid interest on the back pay, the agency is directed
to do so. Complainant also seeks interest on the litigation expenses
award. Complainant notes, however, that payment was received on December
16, 2003 and February 19, 2004. Since the FAD was issued on November
14, 2003, we find no undue delay in the agency's payment and hence no
entitlement to interest on the award of litigation expenses. See Chow
v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05991106 (February 13, 2001)
(interest awarded where the agency unduly delayed payment for two years).
Regarding any additional payments ordered in this decision, complainant
is not entitled to interest because such amounts were still in dispute
and any delay by the agency in paying such amounts was not undue.
Past and Future Medical Expenses
The agency argues that future medical expenses are covered by the
nonpecuniary damages award. The Commission finds that this is clearly in
error as the purpose of the nonpecuniary damages award is to compensate
complainant for his pain and suffering due to the agency's discrimination,
not for his medical expenses. Complainant argues that the agency's
discrimination resulted in a need for ongoing treatment and that he will
not be made whole if he is not compensated for future medical expenses.
He has presented a statement from his physician, dated October 13, 2003,
asserting that complainant will need treatment for up to three years
for his condition. Exhibit 24, Attachment 7. Complainant has also
provided a detailed breakdown of anticipated future medical expenses
totaling $11,895. Id., Attachments 1 through 6. We find initially
that complainant's claim for future medical expenses is reasonable.
We note, however, that he has based his calculations on his physician's
post-hearing statement that 80 percent of complainant's symptoms are
due to the agency's discrimination. The AJ already found that only 55
percent of complainant's symptoms are due to the agency's discrimination.
Given complainant's hearing testimony where he attributed �50 or 60
percent,� HT, p. 86, of his symptoms to the agency's action, we find that
the AJ's decision in this regard was supported by substantial evidence
available to the AJ at the time of his decision. We therefore find
complainant is entitled to $8,177.95 (55 percent of the total medical
expenses of $14,869) in future medical expenses. As entitlement to
future medical expenses has remained in dispute, we find the agency's
delay in paying such an amount was not undue and therefore the agency
is not liable for interest.
Payments to Complainant's Non-Attorney Representative
The AJ did not grant complainant's claim for reimbursement for his
non-attorney representative, and the agency's FAD adopted the AJ's
decision. Complainant argues that EEOC regulations provide that
complainants may have a representative and that the representative
does not have to be an attorney, and that it is unfair and possibly
unconstitutional for the representative to not receive compensation.
Complainant further argues that not paying his non-attorney representative
is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
We note that, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(iii), attorney's fees
are allowable only for the services of members of the Bar and law clerks,
paralegals, or law students under the supervision of members of the Bar.
Complainant's representative concedes he is not a member of the Bar,
nor was the work he performed for complainant under the supervision of
a member of the Bar. Complainant's argument that his representative is
entitled to payment for his highly effective representation of complainant
misses the issue. The issue is not whether complainant's representative
is entitled to payment, it is whether an agency of the United States
Government is liable for reimbursement to either a complainant, for
payments already made to that complainant's non-attorney representative,
or to a non-attorney representative directly. Complainant has identified
no statute or precedential decision that holds that such reimbursement
is due from the agency. Absent any legal justification for such
reimbursement, the Commission is without authority to order the agency
to pay for the services of complainant's non-attorney representative.
Nonpecuniary Compensatory Damages
Complainant claims �an amount in the range of $250,000 to $300,000 would
be appropriate for the suffering, physically, mentally, and emotionally
that the complainant has experienced and continues to experience, because
of the agency [sic] act of discrimination.� Complainant's Appeal Brief,
p. 34. Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
a complainant who establishes his claim of unlawful discrimination
may receive, in addition to equitable remedies, compensatory damages
for past and future pecuniary losses (i.e., out of pocket expenses)
and non-pecuniary losses (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish).
42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3). For an employer with more than 500 employees,
such as the agency, the limit of liability for future pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damages is $300,000.00 Id.
The particulars of what relief may be awarded, and what proof is
necessary to obtain that relief, are set forth in detail in EEOC
Notice No. N 915.002, Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available
Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992).
Briefly stated, the complainant must submit evidence to show that the
agency's discriminatory conduct directly or proximately caused the losses
for which damages are sought. Id. at 11-12, 14; Rivera v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22, 1994). The amount awarded
should reflect the extent to which the agency's discriminatory action
directly or proximately caused harm to the complainant and the extent to
which other factors may have played a part. EEOC Notice No. N 915.002
at 11-12. The amount of non-pecuniary damages should also reflect the
nature and severity of the harm to the complainant, and the duration or
expected duration of the harm. Id. at 14.
In Carle v. Department of the Navy, the Commission explained that
"objective evidence" of non-pecuniary damages could include a
statement by the complainant explaining how he or she was affected
by the discrimination. EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993).
Statements from others, including family members, friends, and health
care providers could address the outward manifestations of the impact
of the discrimination on the complainant. Id. The complainant could also
submit documentation of medical or psychiatric treatment related to the
effects of the discrimination. Id.
The Commission applies the principle that "a tortfeasor takes its
victims as it finds them." Wallis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01950510 (November 13, 1995) (quoting Williamson v. Handy
Button Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290, 1295 (7th Cir. 1987)). However, the
Commission also applies two exceptions to this general rule. First,
when a complainant has a pre-existing condition, the agency is liable
only for the additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination.
Second, if the complainant's pre-existing condition inevitably would have
worsened, the agency is entitled to a reduction in damages reflecting
the extent to which the condition would have worsened even absent the
discrimination; the burden of proof is on the agency to establish the
extent of this entitlement. Wallis, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (citing
Maurer v. United States, 668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981)); Finlay v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942985 (April 29, 1997).
The Commission notes, therefore, that complainant is entitled to
recover damages only for injury, or additional injury, caused by the
discrimination. Terrell v. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
EEOC Appeal No. 01961030 (October 25, 1996); EEOC Notice No. N 915.002
at 12.
The AJ found that complainant suffered from insomnia, depression, anxiety,
and chest pain, based on complainant's hearing testimony. The AJ further
found that 55 percent of complainant's symptoms were attributable to the
agency's discrimination, again based on complainant's hearing testimony.
The AJ awarded $15,000 but cited no caselaw to support such an award.
Several Commission decisions have addressed compensatory damages in
cases similar to complainant's. See Terrell v. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, EEOC Appeal No. 01961030 (October 25, 1996) ($25,000
award for emotional harm where discriminatory nonselection exacerbated,
for at least two years, problems unrelated to discrimination); Smith
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01943844 (May 9, 1996)
($25,000 award for emotional harm, where many aggravating factors not
related to discrimination were also present); Hatchett v United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964256 (October 1, 1996) ($20,000
awarded for anger, suspicion, and withdrawal from family and friends,
and exacerbation of pre-existing anxiety and depression).
Given the above, we find that the evidence supports an award of
$25,000.00. This amount takes into account the severity and the duration
of the harm done to complainant by the agency's action, as well as the
fact that some of complainant's symptoms were unrelated to the agency's
action. This amount further meets the goals of not being motivated
by passion or prejudice, not being "monstrously excessive" standing
alone, and being consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases.
See Ward-Jenkins v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483
(March 4, 1999) (citing Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F. 2d 827, 848
(7th Cir. 1989)); US EEOC v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 823
F.Supp. 573, 574 (N.D. Ill 1993).
Accordingly, after a review of the record in its entirety, including
consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's
final decision as modified herein. The agency is therefore directed
to comply with the order below.
ORDER (D0403)
The agency, if it has not already done so, is ordered to take the
following remedial action:
Within forty-five (45) days of this decision becoming final, the agency
is ordered to pay complainant the sum of $8,177.95 for past and future
medical expenses. If the agency has already paid complainant $856.93
for medical expenses as referenced in the agency's brief, the agency
need only pay complainant the sum of $7,3210.02 ($8,177.95 - $856.93)
for past and future medical expenses.
Within forty-five (45) days of this decision becoming final, the
agency is ordered to pay complainant the sum of $25,000 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages.
Within forty-five (45) days of this decision becoming final, the agency
is ordered to pay complainant pecuniary damages in the amount of $23.31
for postage, $188.02 for office supplies and $549.35 for photocopying
expenses.
Within thirty (30) days of this decision becoming final, complainant
shall provide an itemization of additional litigation expenses
incurred from November 6, 2003 to the date the decision becomes final.
Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the itemization of additional
expenses, the agency shall reimburse complainant for such expenses.
Within forty-five (45) days of this decision becoming final, the agency
shall provide a detailed itemization of all payments made to date and
all payments made or due, pursuant to this order. The information
shall include a breakdown of back pay and interest for each year.
If the agency's back pay payment did not include interest, the agency
is also directed to calculate interest and pay complainant that amount.
Within forty-five (45) days of this decision becoming final, the agency
shall pay complainant $1,426.19 for travel expenses. However, if the
agency has already paid complainant $2,009.38 for all travel expenses,
the agency is directed include an itemization of such payment in the
overall itemization discussed above in paragraph 5. If such a payment
has already been made, the agency is entitled to recoup $583.19 from
complainant ($2,009.38 paid - $1,426.19 complainant is entitled to =
$583.19).
Within sixty (60) days of this decision becoming final, the agency shall
train the selecting official who failed to select complainant for the
Lead Accountant, GS-510-13, position in the area of sex discrimination
under Title VII.
The agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the
selecting official. The agency shall report its decision. If the agency
decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken.
If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set
forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of additional litigation
payments due, the agency shall issue a check to the complainant for
the undisputed amount. The complainant may petition for enforcement or
clarification of the amount in dispute. The complainant may also petition
for enforcement or clarification of the agency's itemization of payments.
The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the
Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled
"Implementation of the Commission's Decision."
The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as
provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's
Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the
agency's calculation of backpay and other benefits due complainant,
including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its Strategic Petroleum Project
Management Office, Office of the Assistant Project Manager, Financial
Planning and Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana facility copies
of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the
agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the agency
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid
by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees
to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant 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. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant 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. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
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)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must 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 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 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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 19, 2005
__________________
Date
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
An Agency of the United States Government
This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission dated which found that a
violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. (Title VII), has occurred at this facility.
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any
employee or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or DISABILITY with respect
to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or
privileges of employment. The Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum
Project Management Office, Financial Planning and Management Division,
New Orleans, Louisiana facility confirms its commitment to comply with
these statutory provisions.
The Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum Project Management Office,
Financial Planning and Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana
facility supports and will comply with such Federal law and will not
take action against individuals because they have exercised their rights
under law.
The Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum Project Management Office,
Financial Planning and Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana
facility has been found to have discriminated against an employee when
the employee was not selected for a position. The Department of Energy,
Strategic Petroleum Project Management Office, Financial Planning and
Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana facility has been ordered
to provide compensatory damages to the affected employee and provide
training regarding reprisal under Title VII to appropriate managers.
The Strategic Petroleum Project Management Office, Financial Planning
and Management Division, New Orleans, Louisiana facility will ensure that
officials responsible for personnel decisions and terms and conditions of
employment will abide by the requirements of all Federal equal employment
opportunity laws.
The Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum Project Management
Office, Financial Planning and Management Division, New Orleans,
Louisiana facility will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce,
or retaliate against any individual who exercises his or her right to
oppose practices made unlawful by, or who participates in proceedings
pursuant to, Federal equal employment opportunity law.
_______________________________
Date Posted: ____________________
Posting Expires: ________________
29 C.F.R. Part 1614