07A30073
03-18-2003
James Marriott, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James Marriott v. United States Postal Service
07A30073
March 18, 2003
.
James Marriott,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 07A30073
Agency No. 4D-280-0043-98
Hearing No. 140-98-8431X
DECISION
Following its June 12, 2002 final order, the agency filed a timely
appeal which the Commission accepts pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
On appeal, the agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of
an EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) order awarding the sum of $25,000.00
in compensatory damages. For the following reasons, the Commission
REVERSES the agency's final order.
Complainant, a probationary City Carrier employed at the agency's
Fayetteville, North Carolina facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with
the agency on March 19, 1998, alleging that the agency discriminated
against him on the basis of disability (bipolar disorder) when he was
terminated. The AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination, which the
agency adopted in its final decision. Complainant appealed that decision
and the Commission reversed the agency's decision, finding instead that
complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation when he was terminated.
The Commission further remanded the issue of compensatory damages and
attorney's fees to the local EEOC Hearings Unit. The AJ subsequently
issued a new decision awarding compensatory damages as described above.
The AJ noted that complainant had not requested attorney's fees and
had proceeded pro se. The AJ further noted that complainant had not
submitted any documentation to support either his claim for costs
incurred in litigating his complaint or for his claim for pecuniary
damages. The AJ therefore denied complainant's claim for costs and
pecuniary damages. Regarding non-pecuniary compensatory damages, the
AJ noted that complainant's disability pre-existed the agency's action,
and further noted the mitigating factors of other personal problems
faced by complainant at the time, unrelated to the agency's action.
The agency's final order rejected the AJ's decision. On appeal,
the agency argues that the evidence does not show any aggravation of
complainant's condition, nor is there medical evidence of a nexus
between the alleged harm and the agency's discriminatory actions.
Complainant requests that we affirm the AJ's decision.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA)
authorizes awards of compensatory damages as relief for intentional
discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. �198la.
Compensatory damages are recoverable in the administrative process.
West v. Gibson, 119 S.Ct. 1996 (1999); see Jackson v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01923399 (November 12, 1992),
req. to recon. den., EEOC Request No. 05930306 (February 1, 1993).
Compensatory damages may be awarded for losses and suffering due to the
discriminatory acts or conduct of the agency and include past pecuniary
losses, future pecuniary losses, and non-pecuniary losses that are
directly or proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct.
See Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. N 915.002 (July 14, 1992)
(Notice) at p. 8.
The AJ based her decision on complainant's own testimony that the
agency's discriminatory actions sent him into �full blown psychosis� and
on contemporaneous psychiatric records that revealed discussions he had
with his physician concerning his termination by the agency. We note
that, while complainant provided no expert testimony showing either an
aggravation of his condition or establishing a nexus with the agency's
action, the Commission has long held that evidence by a health care
provider is not required to prove nonpecuniary damages. See Lawrence
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (April 18,
1996); Holler v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01982627
(August 22, 2001).
We note that the AJ's award is consistent with the amounts awarded in
similar cases, given the level of psychological harm experienced by
complainant, as well as the fact that complainant had a pre-existing
psychological condition. See Smith v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal
No. 01943844 (May 8, 1996)(complainant awarded $25,000.00 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages for exacerbation of pre-existing depression due
to sexual harassment); Terrell v. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, EEOC Appeal No. 01961030 (October 25, 1996), request for
reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05970336 (November 20, 1997)
($25,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages awarded for psychological harm,
despite the fact that complainant had been experiencing numerous problems
outside the workplace before the agency's action, including bankruptcy,
marital difficulties, and his wife's illness. The Commission found
that the agency's action exacerbated the complainant's pre-existing
emotional and psychological problems, but to a limited extent).
The Commission further notes that the amount awarded by the AJ 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 Cygnar, 865 F.2d at 848;
US EEOC v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 823 F.Supp. 573, 574
(N.D. Ill 1993). We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically discussed in this decision, the Commission
reverses the agency's final order and remands the matter to the agency
to take corrective action in accordance with this decision and the
Order below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:
1) Within sixty days from the date this decision becomes final, the agency
shall pay complainant the amount of $25,000.00 in compensatory damages.
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 (R0900)
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 within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. 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 (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
March 18, 2003
__________________
Date