01974616
05-26-2000
Rhoda A. Batieste, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Rhoda A. Batieste v. Department of the Air Force
01974616
May 26, 2000
Rhoda A. Batieste, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01974616
) Agency No. RXOF94027
F. Whitten Peters, )
Acting Secretary, )
Department of the Air Force, )
Agency. )
______________________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) from the final agency decision concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint, which alleged discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted by the Commission in
accordance with the provisions of 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the agency properly determined the extent
of complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages.
BACKGROUND
Complainant filed a series of formal EEO complaints alleging that the
agency discriminated against her on the bases of race, sex, and reprisal
with regard to various terms and conditions of her employment, and on
the basis of reprisal when she ultimately was removed from employment.
Following a hearing on the consolidated complaints, an EEOC administrative
judge issued a recommended decision<1> finding discrimination as to all
issues, and directing the agency to conduct a supplemental investigation
into complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages. The agency
issued a final agency decision accepting the AJ's determinations.
The agency conducted the supplemental investigation, and determined that
complainant had not adequately substantiated her claim for pecuniary
damages. The agency further found that complainant was entitled to
non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $7000. It is from this decision
that complainant now appeals.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Legal Standards for an Award of Compensatory Damages
Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a
complainant who establishes his or 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 (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. 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. Dept. 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. Dept. 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.
With regard to pecuniary damages, the complainant must submit evidence
sufficient to establish the amount of expenses incurred, and that the
expenses were causally connected to the discrimination. Contrary to
the assertion of the agency herein, proof that payment has already been
made by the complainant is not required; the complainant will not be
penalized for a creditor's forbearance.
B. Calculation of Damages Payable
1. Past Pecuniary Damages
Complainant claimed past pecuniary damages for a number of expenses,
each of which will be addressed in turn.
(a) Moving Expenses
Complainant stated that she was forced to move because the termination
of her employment resulted in "[l]oss of income to sustain level of
expenses." Complainant claimed a total of $1045 in moving expenses,
broken down as follows: first month's rent, $395; security deposit, $200;
rental truck and packing equipment and material, $200; babysitter, labor,
and food, $250. Complainant submitted documents showing the amount of
rent and security deposit to be paid for the apartment to which she moved.
The Commission finds that complainant has not established her entitlement
to the damages claimed. The security deposit is not a loss, as that money
presumably will be returned to complainant at such time as she vacates the
apartment. Neither is the first month's rent a loss, because complainant
would have had housing expenses regardless of where she was living.<2>
Regarding the remaining claimed expenses, complainant has submitted no
documentation to substantiate the amounts claimed, or relating the claim
to the agency's actions; for example, the decrease in her housing expense
on account of the move. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no part
of the claimed moving expenses may be recovered as compensatory damages.
(b) Job Search Expenses
Complainant claimed a total of $500 for expenses related to "[e]mployment
developed, secured, and held during the past 22 months." Complainant
submitted no documentation to substantiate the amount spent, or
identifying for what, exactly, the monies were expended. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that no part of the claimed job search expenses
may be recovered as compensatory damages.
(c) Job Search Clothing and Maintenance
Complainant claimed a total of $1000 for expenses related to the purchase
and maintenance of appropriate clothing for her job search and subsequent
employment, noting that the wardrobe for her previous employment as a
Sheet Metal mechanic was not suitable for her subsequent employment as
a retail clerk and hotel clerk. Complainant submitted no documentation
to substantiate the amount spent, or identifying for what, exactly,
the monies were expended. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no
part of the claimed job search clothing and maintenance expenses may be
recovered as compensatory damages.
(d) Child Care Expenses
Complainant claimed a total of $1500 for child care expenses, which
she stated were incurred because rather than working one job, after her
termination from the agency she worked two or occasionally three jobs.
Complainant submitted documentation showing the amount of child care
expenses she had paid after her termination from the agency. However,
complainant submitted no documentation to show that the amount paid was
in excess of the amount she paid for child care while she was employed
by the agency. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no part of the
claimed child care expenses may be recovered as compensatory damages.
(e) Personal Unsecured Loans
Complainant claimed a total of $4650 for "personal unsecured loans."
Complainant submitted no documentation regarding these loans; in
particular, she did not identify how the borrowed sums were expended.
Although complainant's need to borrow money may have arisen from
her termination and the consequent loss of pay, such loss of pay is
compensated not through payment of damages, but through an award of back
pay, which has already been made. Expenses incidental to securing a loan,
such as interest and fees, may be recovered as compensatory damages,
but complainant has submitted no evidence of such incidental expenses.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that no part of the claimed loans may
be recovered as compensatory damages.
(f) Transportation and Additional Car Expenses
Complainant claimed a total of $1000 for "additional mileage over 22
month period to maintain jobs and other miscellaneous items necessary for
safety and well-being." Increased transportation expenses resulting from
complainant's termination, e.g., higher commuting costs to a new job,
are compensable. However, complainant has submitted no documentation
to substantiate the amount of transportation expenses claimed, nor that
such expenses exceeded her transportation expenses while she was employed
by the agency. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no part of the
claimed transportation expenses may be recovered as compensatory damages.
(g) Car Insurance Replacement
Complainant claimed $563 that she was charged by her credit union
for replacement car insurance purchased by the credit union after
complainant's automobile insurance policy lapsed for non-payment.
Complainant submitted documentation showing the amount that she was
charged for the replacement policy. However, complainant submitted no
documentation to show that the amount she was charged was in excess of
the amount she paid for automobile insurance under the policy which
had lapsed. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no part of the
claimed insurance expense may be recovered as compensatory damages.
(h) Credit-Related Losses
Complainant claimed $7400 in damages, stating that on account of her
bankruptcy filing, she lost a line of credit "and the prospects for
developing any other line of credit in the near future." Although it
is not entirely clear from where the amount claimed by complainant
was derived, it approximates the total amount of debt reported in her
bankruptcy petition. There is no information provided regarding when the
debts were incurred and for what purpose, nor linking the incursion of
the debts to complainant's termination. Accordingly, no part of these
expenses may be recovered as compensatory damages. However, the injury
to complainant's credit standing may be compensable under non-pecuniary
damages, discussed below.
(i) Bankruptcy Costs
Complainant claimed $450 for costs associated with filing for bankruptcy
under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The evidence
submitted by complainant, however, reflects costs in the amount of
$630, broken down as follows: bankruptcy petition filing fee, $160,
and attorney fees, $470. The Commission therefore awards complainant
$630 for costs attendant upon filing for bankruptcy.
(j) Back Pay and Benefits Associated with Previous Termination and
Settlement
Complainant claimed a total of $13,200 in back pay and benefits, which
she explained she had forgone as part of a 1992 settlement agreement
returning her to work after a previous termination. This claim is
not properly brought as part of a claim for compensatory damages.
A breach of settlement allegation is either processed pursuant to 29
C.F.R. �1614.504 or, if the basis of discrimination alleged is reprisal,
as a new complaint of discrimination. In either event, complainant
would not be entitled to the claimed pecuniary damages for forgone back
pay and benefits. Rather, she would be entitled to either specific
performance of the terms of the settlement agreement, or to have the
underlying complaint reinstated. Because the settlement agreement did
not provide for back pay and benefits, there would be no basis for such
an award, even if breach were found.
2. Future Pecuniary Damages
(a) Medical Expenses
Complainant claimed future medical expenses of $15,000. In support of
her request, she submitted a letter from a Board-certified psychiatrist
who has never examined her.<3> The letter answered various questions
posed by complainant, including the likely effects on an individual
of acts of discrimination, possible diagnoses, and possible need for
psychiatric treatment. The Commission finds this evidence to be of
no probative value. Compensatory damages are not awarded based on
hypothetical injury to a hypothetical individual. Because this physician
never examined complainant, and had no knowledge of the specific history
of her case or her specific injury, his opinions are based entirely on
speculation and conjecture of what a generic individual may experience
and may need in the way of treatment. Accordingly, Complainant may not
recover compensatory damages for future medical expenses.
(b) Increased Mortgage Expense
Complainant claimed $35,000 which she states represents the difference
between the total cost of a mortgage that she expected to obtain prior
to declaring bankruptcy, and the total cost that she now expects to
have to pay on account of having declared bankruptcy. Apart from the
circumstance, as noted above, that complainant has not submitted evidence
to establish that the bankruptcy filing in fact was attributable to her
termination from the agency, the expense claimed is entirely speculative.
Complainant held no mortgage prior to her termination, and does not hold
one now. An award of damages cannot be made based purely on speculation.
3. Non-Pecuniary Damages
Complainant has requested a total of $900,000 in non-pecuniary damages.<4>
In support of her request, complainant stated that when she was removed
from employment, her "world seemed to crumble." Complainant stated that
she had to lower her standard of living, including moving to a smaller
apartment. Complainant stated that she felt worthless and depressed,
and developed a negative attitude about herself and the outside world.
Complainant stated that she was frightened by the actions of agency
management officials, felt isolated from her coworkers, became irritable,
and had intense feelings of anxiety. Complainant also stated that
an article in the local newspaper referred to her EEO complaint in a
negative light, and that several people expressed their opinions about
the article, which upset her. Complainant stated that she experienced
nausea and insomnia on account her distress.<5> Complainant also noted
that she had been subjected to loss of credit standing on account of
having to declare bankruptcy following her removal from employment.
In support of this claim, complainant submitted a letter from her credit
union stating that her credit standing was "outstanding" prior to her
removal, but that her removal from employment precipitated financial
difficulties which led her to file for bankruptcy.
Complainant's daughter submitted a statement in which she stated that
complainant went into a "deep depression," staying in bed all day and
not eating. Complainant's representative and three friends, one of
whom was also a coworker, corroborated the statements by complainant
regarding her metal state and the physical manifestations of her distress.
There are no "hard and fast" rules governing the amount to be awarded.
However, non-pecuniary damages must be limited to the sums necessary
to compensate the injured party for actual harm, even where the
harm is intangible, see Carter v. Duncan-Hogans, Ltd., 727 F.2d 1225
(D.C. Cir. 1994), and should take into account the severity of the harm
and the length of time that the injured party has suffered from the harm.
Carpenter v. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17,
1995); EEOC Notice No. N 915.002 at 14. 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 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).
Several Commission decisions have awarded compensatory damages in
cases similar to complainant's. Benson v. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC
Appeal No. 01952854 (June 27, 1996) ($5,000 non-pecuniary damages where
complainant was denied promotional opportunities on the bases of race and
reprisal, and consequently experienced stress, skin rashes, withdrawal,
and isolation); Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288
(April 18, 1996) ($3,000 in non-pecuniary damages for sexual harassment
where complainant presented primarily non-medical evidence that she
was irritable, experienced anxiety attacks, and was shunned by her
co-workers); Rountree v. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01941906
(July 7, 1995) ($8,000 in non-pecuniary damages where complainant received
a low performance appraisal and was denied bonus pay because of race and
reprisal; 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).
Taking into account the evidence of non-pecuniary damages submitted
by complainant, the Commission finds that complainant is entitled to
non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $12,000. This amount takes into
account the severity and likely duration of the harm done to complainant
by the agency's actions,<6> as well as the fact that complainant's
condition likely was also influenced by her declaration of bankruptcy and
the stress of the EEO process. The Commission further notes that this
amount 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;
AIC Security Investigations, 823 F.Supp. 573 at 574.
CONCLUSION
Based upon a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
MODIFY the final agency decision. to increase the award of compensatory
damages to $12,630.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following action:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date on which this decision becomes
final, the agency shall tender to complainant compensatory damages in
the amount of $12,630, less any amount of compensatory damages paid
to complainant.
2. If the agency has not already posted a notice of the finding of
discrimination, it shall post the attached notice as directed in the
paragraph below entitled, "Posting Order."
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, including
evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
POSTING ORDER (G1092)
The agency is ORDERED to post at its Robins Air Force Base 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 (H1199)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)
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:
May 26, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
____________________________ ________________________
Equal Employment Specialist Date
This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission dated which found that
a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., has occurred at this facility.
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any
employee or applicant for employment because of that person's RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or PHYSICAL or MENTAL
DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation,
or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
The Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, 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 the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, has been found to
have discriminated against the individual affected by the Commission's
finding. The Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, shall
award the affected individual relief including compensatory damages and
shall pay the affected individual's reasonable attorney fees and costs.
The Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, 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 and will not retaliate against employees
who file EEO complaints.
The Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, 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
1At that time, the Commission's regulations provided that the decision
of an administrative judge could be accepted, modified, or rejected
by the agency. On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the
EEOC's federal sector complaint process went into effect. In part, the
revised regulations provide that decision of an administrative judge is
binding on both parties, subject to the right of appeal. The revised
regulations apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any
stage in the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will
apply the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999),
where applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations,
as amended, may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2It is noted that complainant did not submit evidence to show that the
agency's action's caused her to incur housing expenses where she had
none before.
3It is not apparent how or why complainant selected this particular
physician to supply evidence on her behalf.
4As noted above, the statutory cap on future pecuniary damages and
non-pecuniary damages is $300,000.
5Complainant also referred to emotional distress experienced by her
daughter, who she stated left college as a result of complainant's
financial situation. Compensatory damages, however, are only recoverable
for injury sustained by the complainant. See Carpenter v. Department of
Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995), n.4; EEOC Notice
N 915.002, Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under �102 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (compensatory damages payable
only to the "complainant," as defined in �102 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1991).
6The agency noted that complainant was reinstated about 21 months after
her removal. The Commission recognizes that the harm to complainant did
not, of necessity, cease at that point, but complainant did not address
this point.