Peggy A. Mounia, Complainant,v.John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 7, 2002
01A13139 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2002)

01A13139

08-07-2002

Peggy A. Mounia, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.


Peggy A. Mounia v. Department of Justice

01A13139

August 7, 2002

.

Peggy A. Mounia,

Complainant,

v.

John Ashcroft,

Attorney General,

Department of Justice,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A13139

Agency No. I986039

DECISION

Peggy M. Mounia (complainant) timely initiated an appeal from a final

agency decision (FAD) concerning her entitlement to compensatory damages

incurred as a result of the agency's 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.

On March 30, 1998, complainant filed a complaint alleging that she

was discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American)

and sex (female) when she was denied overtime opportunities.

After an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an

EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ determined that the agency had

discriminated against complainant, noting that a similarly situated

White, male co-worker was treated more favorably in regard to overtime

opportunities. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision

and awarded various remedial relief, including proven compensatory

damages. The agency advised complainant to submit supporting evidence

to establish that the agency's discriminatory action caused her to

incur damages.

Subsequently, on March 12, 2001, the agency issued a final agency decision

in regard to complainant's compensatory damages claim. Therein, the

agency noted that on July 12, 2000, complainant submitted a letter,

through her attorney, requesting compensatory damages in the amount of

$5,212.00. This request did not include any supporting documentation or

evidence, but rather simply included an itemization of costs complainant

allegedly incurred due to the agency's discrimination, as follows: long

distance telephone calls, $100.00; federal express, $28.00; priority mail,

$9.00; typing services, $75.00; loans and fees incurred, $5,000.00.

The agency further noted that on November 15, 2000, complainant was

provided another opportunity to submit supporting evidence for her claim.

According to the agency, on December 6, 2000, complainant's attorney

(CA) requested additional time to make this submission on December 6,

2000, which he was given. After receiving no response for several weeks

from complainant or CA, the agency contacted CA on January 17, 2001,

and was told that no further evidence would be provided.

The agency concluded that although complainant claimed various

out-of-pocket expenses, she failed to provide any evidence to establish

that she incurred those expenses, or that they were caused by the agency's

discriminatory actions. The agency therefore found that complainant

failed to establish her entitlement to a compensatory damages award.

On appeal, complainant provides paperwork concerning two loans she

took out in order to pay her attorney's retainer fee and explains that

the long distance calls she claimed as expenses were made to the EEO

counselor and to the EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C. She further

notes that the postage expenses covered costs for mailing her complaint

form and related documents to the agency. In response, the agency asks

that its FAD be affirmed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a complainant

who establishes her 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

(i.e., 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. Id. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Commission

possesses the legal authority to require federal agencies to pay

compensatory damages. See West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (1999).

The particulars of what relief may be awarded, and the proof necessary to

obtain that relief, are set forth in detail in Compensatory and Punitive

Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

EEOC Notice No. N-915.002 (July 14, 1992) (Compensatory Damages Notice).

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. See Damiano v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Request No. 05980311 (February 26, 1999). The amount

awarded should reflect the extent to which the agency's discriminatory

action directly or proximately caused harm to complainant and the extent

to which other factors may have played a part. See Compensatory Damages

Notice, at 11-12. The amount of non-pecuniary damages should also

reflect the nature and severity of the harm to complainant, and the

duration or expected duration of the harm. Id. at 14. A complainant

is required to provide evidence that will allow an agency to assess the

merits of complainant's request for emotional distress damages. See Carle

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993).

In the case at hand, despite receiving two opportunities to do so,

complainant failed to submit to the agency any evidence to establish

that she actually incurred the damages she claimed in her July 12,

2000 submission. She also submitted nothing to indicate that these

damages were caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct. Not only did

complainant fail to submit receipts or other documentation in support of

her claim, she failed to provide an affidavit or statement from herself

or any other witnesses to confirm that she incurred the claimed losses

and that they were related to the agency's discriminatory action.

Complainant submits, on appeal, a statement regarding her claimed

expenses and documentation which establishes that she took out two loans.

This information constitutes new evidence which cannot be considered

on appeal inasmuch as complainant had ample notice and opportunity to

submit documentation and/or a statement to the agency in support of her

compensatory damages claim, and has not proffered any reason whatever

why she did not do so. In these circumstances, we find that the agency

properly determined that complainant did not prove her entitlement to

compensatory damages. The agency's FAD is therefore AFFIRMED.

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

August 7, 2002

Date