Roy A. Shobert, Complainant,v.Michael L. Dominguez, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 4, 2005
01a40981 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2005)

01a40981

08-04-2005

Roy A. Shobert, Complainant, v. Michael L. Dominguez, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Roy A. Shobert v. Department of the Air Force

01A40981

August 4, 2005

.

Roy A. Shobert,

Complainant,

v.

Michael L. Dominguez,

Acting Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A40981

Agency No. 9V1M97334

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts the complainant's

appeal from the agency's final decision awarding complainant the sum

of $2,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages following a decision by

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finding that the agency had

engaged in unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission

modifies the agency's final decision on compensatory damages.

The record reveals that complainant filed a formal EEO complaint

in August 1997 alleging that he was discriminated on the basis of

disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was not

returned to full duty status until January 1998. The Commission found

no discrimination on the basis of reprisal but found complainant had

been subjected to disability discrimination when the agency regarded

complainant as having a substantially limiting impairment, placed him

on light duty for nearly nine months, and issued complainant a notice

proposing to place him on enforced leave for an indefinite period

due to his inability to perform the essential duties of his position.

Shobert v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01991157 (August

28, 2002). The Commission ordered, in pertinent part, that the agency

conduct a supplementary investigation regarding complainant's entitlement

to compensatory damages. Id.

The agency's compensatory damages decision found complainant was not

entitled to pecuniary compensatory damages and further noted that

complainant did not request pecuniary damages. The agency awarded

complainant $2,000 in non-pecuniary damages. On appeal, complainant

contests the agency's non-pecuniary damages award.

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) (Guidance).

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. Guidance 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.

In the instant case, complainant submitted a declaration indicating that,

as a result of the agency's discriminatory conduct, he suffered from

emotional distress, humiliation and severe anxiety from April 1997 up

to and beyond January 1998. Complainant also submitted documentation

from his doctor indicating that complainant was to attend two to

three psychotherapy sessions, and reporting that complainant suffered

from multiple symptoms, including suffering from job distress, feeling

anxious or tense, being sad or discouraged, having difficulty sleeping,

feeling hopeless, losing his appetite, feeling quick to anger, worrying

without reason, and having disturbing thoughts. Complainant's friend

submitted a statement which stated that complainant had changed during

the period in question, noting that complainant seemed more withdrawn,

somber, and easily angered. Complainant's mother submitted a statement

noting that he had become unhappy at work and reclusive at home.

After a careful review of the record, we concur with the agency's finding

that complainant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to pecuniary

damages. We note that complainant did not request pecuniary damages.

With respect to non-pecuniary damages, we find that the agency's award

of non-pecuniary damages is not consistent with the amounts awarded in

similar cases, given the level of harm experienced by complainant.

In determining compensatory damages, the Commission strives to make

damage awards for emotional harm consistent with awards in similar cases.

A number of Commission decisions have awarded non-pecuniary damages in

cases which we compare to complainant's. Bradley v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A22995 (April 23, 2003) (awarding $10,000

in non-pecuniary damages based on stress and emotional harm resulting

from the agency's disability discrimination); Howard v. Department of

Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 07A10098 (September 30, 2002) (awarding $10,000

in non-pecuniary damages based on complainant's testimony that her

professional reputation was harmed, that she was physically and socially

isolated from her co-workers, and that she suffered humiliation and

emotional distress due to the agency's discriminatory conduct); Rountree

v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01941906 (July 7, 1995)

(awarding $8,000 in non-pecuniary damages where complainant suffered

from emotional distress, but the majority of complainant's emotional

problems were caused by factors other than the discrimination).

As such, the Commission awards non-pecuniary compensatory damages in the

amount of $10,000 since the record shows that complainant experienced

emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, and adverse effects on his

social life for nearly nine months as a result of the agency's disability

discrimination. This amount is adequate to compensate complainant for

the harm shown to be causally related to the discriminatory conduct.

Further, the amount of the award meets the goals of not being �monstrously

excessive� standing alone, not being the product of passion or prejudice,

and being 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);

Wallis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (November

13, 1995).

Therefore, based upon our review of the record, the Commission modifies

the agency's final decision. The agency is directed to take remedial

action in accordance with this decision and the Order below.

ORDER (C0900)

The agency is ordered to take the following remedial action:

Within thirty (30) days of the date this decision becomes final, the

agency shall pay complainant $10,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory

damages less any amounts already paid.

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 verifying

that the corrective action has been implemented.

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

August 4, 2005

__________________

Date