01A04769
03-06-2001
Reba G. Randle-Harris, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Reba G. Randle-Harris v. United States Postal Service
01A04769
March 6, 2001
.
Reba G. Randle-Harris,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A04769
Agency No. 1-I-501-1013-96
Hearing No. 260-97-9125X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning the agency's award of compensatory damages. The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
Complainant, a former Manual Flats Clerk with the agency's Des Moines,
Post Office, filed a formal complaint on May 22, 1996, alleging
discrimination based on her disability (sickle cell anemia) when on
April 14, 1996, she was terminated for failure to follow a direct order
and being AWOL after she refused to do an assignment that allegedly,
would have harmed her health. The agency accepted the complaint and
conducted an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(�AJ�). Following the hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision
(RD) concluding that complainant was discriminated against based on her
disability when she was terminated. Specifically, the AJ found that
there was no attempt to accommodate the complainant after she made her
supervisor aware she could not work the pouch rack because it would cause
overexertion. Based on the record, complainant's restrictions required
her to avoid prolonged heavy physical exertion, prolonged standing and
prolonged heavy lifting. The record shows however, that the supervisor
disputed complainant's documented restrictions and gave complainant five
minutes to submit additional documentation. At that time it was around
midnight. The record shows that complainant returned approximately 45
minutes later with a note from her physician. Complainant was told that
it had taken her too long to get the documentation and she was terminated.
The agency disagreed with the findings and conclusions of the AJ and found
no discrimination. On appeal, the Commission issued a decision finding
discrimination and ordering certain relief, including consideration of
compensatory damages. See Randle v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01980714 (August 26, 1999). After receiving complainant's
compensatory damages evidence, the agency issued its instant FAD
concluding that based on the evidence presented, complainant was entitled
to $15,000.00 in compensatory damages. The FAD based this amount on the
fact that there was no evidence that her termination caused any worsening
of complainant's pre-existing medical condition. The FAD noted that
there was no medical evidence of the extent or duration of the emotional
harm complainant suffered as a result of the termination and that there
was no indication that complainant had helped to mitigate her emotional
distress in any way. Finally, the FAD indicated that complainant had
served only in a temporary position and since her termination she had
held other jobs and gotten married, which demonstrated that she had
substantially recovered from the harm inflicted. The FAD did not award
pecuniary damages to complainant because a casual relationship was not
found between the medicals bills which were submitted for treatment in
December 1996 and May 1999 and the discriminatory incident on April 14,
1996. The FAD maintained that none of the medical records established
a connection between complainant's sickle cell crises and the alleged
discrimination.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency erred in its compensatory
damages determination and that the evidence of the pain and suffering that
she and her family have endured is sufficient to justify a non-pecuniary
award of $75,000.00. Complainant contends that as a result of the
discrimination she experienced she continues to suffer from depression,
mental anguish and stress. She maintains she has not been able to hold
a steady job and her daughter has had to live with her mother because
she could not support her. Complainant maintains that she has been
permanently injured.
ANALYSIS
Section 102(a) of the 1991 Civil Rights Act authorizes an award
of compensatory damages for all post-act pecuniary losses, and for
non-pecuniary losses, such as, but not limited to, emotional pain,
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
injury to character and reputation, and loss of health. In this regard,
the Commission has authority to award such damages in the administrative
process. See West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (1999). Compensatory damages
do not include back pay, interest on back pay, or any other type of
equitable relief authorized by Title VII. To receive an award of
compensatory damages, a complainant must demonstrate that she has been
harmed as a result of the agency's discriminatory action; the extent,
nature and severity of the harm; and the duration or expected duration
of the harm. Rivera v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157
(July 22, 1994), req. for reconsid. Denied, EEOC Request No. 05940927
(December 11, 1995); EEOC's Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and
Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of
1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 11-12, 14 (July 14, 1992) (�Guidance�).
A complainant is required to provide objective evidence that will allow
an agency to assess the merits of her request for damages. See Carle
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993).
A. Pecuniary Damages
Compensatory damages may be awarded for pecuniary losses that are
directly or proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct.
See Guidance at 8. Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses incurred
as a result of the agency's unlawful action, including job-hunting
expenses, moving expenses, medical expenses, psychiatric expenses,
physical therapy expenses, and other quantifiable out-of pocket expenses.
Id. Past pecuniary losses are losses incurred prior to the resolution
of a complaint through a finding of discrimination, the issuance of
a full-relief offer, or a voluntary settlement. Id. At 8-9. Future
pecuniary losses are losses that are likely to occur after resolution
of a complaint. Id. At 9.
In this case, complainant provided physician and other medical expenses
as evidence of pecuniary damages. The medical bills concern services
rendered on December 5, 1996, and May 25, 1999.<1> Complainant provided no
evidence of future pecuniary damages. In its FAD, the agency determined
that since complainant failed to show how these expenses resulted
from the discrimination, she was not entitled to a pecuniary award.
After reviewing the evidence, we find no reason to disturb the agency's
findings. We agree that complainant has not shown the necessary nexus
between the medical bills, incurred for treatment rendered from one
and a half to over three years after complainant's termination, and the
incident of discrimination.
B. Non-pecuniary Damages
Non-pecuniary damages constitute the sums necessary to compensate
the injured party for actual harm, even where the harm is intangible.
Carter v. Duncan-Higgins, Ltd., 727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The
award should taken into account the severity and duration of the harm.
Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July
17, 1995). Non-pecuniary and future pecuniary damages are limited
to an amount of $300,000.00. The Commission notes that for a proper
award of non-pecuniary damages, the amount of the award should not be
�monstrously excessive� standing alone, should not be the product of
passion or prejudice, and should be consistent with the amount 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))
Applying the above legal standards, we agree with the agency that
complainant submitted sufficient unrebutted evidence to establish that
she suffered emotional harm as a result of the agency's discrimination.
The record contains several instances where complainant describes
the effects the discrimination had on her mental and physical health.
Complainant's hearing testimony and statement in support of compensatory
damages indicate that she experienced interference in relationships with
family and friends, experienced a worsening of her sickle cell anemia
condition, and experienced depression. We find that this uncontroverted
evidence establishes complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages.
See Sinott v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01952872 (September
19, 1996) (stating that a complainant's own testimony, along with the
circumstances of a particular case, can establish mental or emotional
harm).
While there is no dispute that complainant is entitled to non-pecuniary
damages, the parties differ on the appropriate amount necessary to
remedy the harm caused by the discrimination. Complainant contends
that she should receive $75,000.00. The agency offers that
$15,000.00 properly compensates complainant for any harm caused
by the discrimination. Initially, we point out that non-pecuniary
compensatory damages are designed to remedy a harm and not to punish
the agency for its discriminatory actions. See Memphis Community School
Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 311-12 (1986) (stating that compensatory
damages determination must be based on the actual harm sustained and
not the facts of the underlying case).
We note that the Commission has awarded compensatory damages in cases
somewhat similar to complainant's case in terms of the harm sustained.
See, e.g., Batieste v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal
No. 01974616 (May 26, 2000)($12,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages based
on complainant's and others' statements of emotional distress due to
agency's discriminatory termination); Jones v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01973551 (April 14, 2000)($9,000.00 in non-pecuniary
damages based on complainant's statements of the interference with
family and marital relations, digestive problems, headaches, anxiety,
sleeplessness, and exhaustion resulting from the agency's discrimination);
Butler v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01971729 (April 15,
1999)($7,500.00 in non-pecuniary damages based on complainant's testimony
regarding his emotional distress); Hull v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, Appeal No. 01951441 (Sept. 18, 1998)($12,000.00 in non-pecuniary
damages based on complainant's testimony of emotional distress due to
retaliatory harassment); White v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Appeal No. 01950342 (June 13, 1997)($5,00.00 in non pecuniary damages
based on emotional distress); Roundtree v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 01941906 (July 7, 1995)($8,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages
where medical evidence testimony was provided regarding complainant's
emotional distress, but the majority of complainant's emotional problems
were caused by factors other than the discrimination).
After analyzing the evidence which establishes the harm sustained by
complainant and upon consideration of damage awards reached in comparable
cases, the Commission agrees with the agency and finds that complainant
is entitled to an award of non-pecuniary damages in the amount of
$15,000.00. We find this case analogous to the above-referenced cases
with respect to the nature, severity and duration of the harm. Finally,
we note that this award is not motivated by passion or prejudice, is
not �monstrously excessive� standing alone, and is consistent with the
amounts awarded in similar cases. See Cygnar, 865 F.2d at 848.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record, and for the
foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the FAD, regarding its award of $15,000.00
non-pecuniary damages. We ORDER the agency to comply with the Order
below.
ORDER (C1092)
To the extent it has not already done so, the agency is ORDERED to take
the following remedial action:
We hereby ORDER the agency to, within thirty (30) days of the date on
which this decision becomes final, tender to complainant $15,000.00 in
compensatory damages.
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 must include evidence that the corrective action
has been implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)
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)(Supp. V 1993). 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.
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.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
March 6, 2001
______________
Date
1The FAD noted only two medical bills. One for $388.00 for an ambulance
on May 25, 1999, and the other for $566.30 for hospital expenses on
December 5, 1996. Upon review of the records however, two additional
charges ($288.00 and $22.00) were found for emergency services on May 25,
1999, bringing the total for medical expenses to $876.30.