01A03145
12-18-2002
Samuel M. Rizzitelli, Jr., Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
Samuel M. Rizzitelli, Jr. v. Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons)
01A03145
December 18, 2002
.
Samuel M. Rizzitelli, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03145
Agency No. P-95-8779
Hearing No. 160-98-8534X
DECISION
The complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from final agency decisions of
the Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons) (agency), concerning
his complaint of 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.
The primary issue on appeal is whether the agency's final decision
properly determined that the complainant was entitled to payment of
$390.00 in pecuniary damages and $3,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages
pursuant to a finding of race and sex discrimination. In addition,
another issue raised is whether the complainant has established that
the agency failed to comply with its FAD dated January 26, 1999.
The record reveals that the complainant, then a Correctional Officer
at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (FCI
Danbury), applied for a Case Manager opening in June 1995. In July
1995, the Warden selected another Correctional Officer (a Black female)
for the vacancy. In August 1995, the complainant sought counseling.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a formal EEO complaint on September
27, 1995, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him on the
basis of his disability (back injury) when he was not selected for a
Case Manager position in July 1995. On October 13, 1995, the agency's
EEO Office appointed an EEO investigator to conduct an investigation
into the complainant's claim. As relief, the complainant requested
�disciplinary action against officials and expectancy damages.�
When interviewed by the EEO Counselor, the Warden said that his selection
was based on Affirmative Action principles. During the subsequent
investigation, the Warden testified:
The selection was based upon who I considered the best qualified for the
position, as well as our EEO concerns. Part of our EEO concerns here
at Danbury, since we are a female facility, is trying to get females as
well as minorities, as [the selectee] in the positions of supervision
and management.
Following the investigation, the complainant was provided a copy of
the investigative record and informed of his right to elect a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or alternatively, to receive
an immediate final decision from the agency. On May 20, 1996, the
complainant requested a hearing before an AJ. The complainant resigned
from the agency in December 1996.
On August 13, 1997, the complainant filed a motion to amend his complaint,
to include the bases of his race (White) and sex (male) when he was not
selected for the Case Manager position. A hearing was held before an AJ
on August 14th and September 16, 1998. Thereafter, the AJ issued his
Findings and Conclusions, recommending a finding of discrimination on
November 20, 1998. The AJ found that the agency discriminated against
the complainant on the bases of his race (White) and gender (male)
when the complainant was not selected for the position of �Correctional
Treatment Specialist� a/k/a �Case Manager,� on or about July 7, 1995.
The AJ ordered the following relief: 1) reinstatement retroactive to July
7, 1995; 2) mitigated back wages since July 7, 1995 and seniority and
other employee emoluments from the date of his nonselection; 3) costs
and expenses; 4) reasonable attorney's fees; 5) compensatory damages;
6) notice to all employees at the agency's Danbury Prison facility of
their right to be free of discrimination; and 7) appropriate remedial EEO
training to personnel staff members who are responsible for the creation
and implementation of the agency's Danbury Affirmative Action Plan.
On January 26, 1999, the agency issued a final decision in this
matter that found the record supported the AJ's determination that the
complainant was discriminated against as described above. The decision
concluded that the Warden's comments constituted direct evidence that
he considered race and sex when he picked the selectee in July 1995.
The decision awarded the complainant mitigated back pay and interest for
the period between July 7, 1995, the date of the selectee's selection
as Case Manager, and December 31, 1996, the date the complainant
resigned from the agency, compensatory damages for the harm the agency's
discriminatory action caused, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
The decision concluded that the complainant was not entitled to
reinstatement (which he did not request) or back pay beyond the date
of his resignation because such relief is available only in cases of
constructive discharge, and the record in this case did not indicate
that the complainant's December 1996 resignation was the result of a
constructive discharge. The complainant was directed to submit any claim
for compensatory damages to the agency's EEO Officer and the Complaint
Adjudication Officer.
Upon receipt of the decision, the complainant requested $300,000.00
in compensatory damages, and supported his claim with his affidavit,
affidavits from his wife, two former coworkers and a friend, and an
analysis of the complainant's �lower standard of living� conducted by
an economist (February 23, 1999, letter from complainant).
On March 8, 2000, the agency issued a final decision on the compensatory
damages. The agency awarded the complainant $390.00 in pecuniary
damages and $3,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages. On March 20, 2000,
the complainant filed an appeal from the final agency decision regarding
compensatory damages.
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.
Objective evidence of compensatory damages can include statements from
the complainant concerning his or her emotional pain or suffering,
inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to
professional standing, injury to character or reputation, injury
to credit standing, loss of health, and any other nonpecuniary
losses that are incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct.
Statements from others, including family members, friends, health
care providers, other counselors (including clergy) could address the
outward manifestations or physical consequences of emotional distress,
including sleeplessness, anxiety, stress, depression, marital strain,
humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, excessive fatigue,
or a nervous breakdown. Lawrence v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01952288 (April 18, 1996).
Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory
prerequisite for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm.
A complainant's own testimony, along with the circumstances of a
particular case, can suffice to sustain his or her burden in this regard.
The more inherently degrading or humiliating the defendant's action is,
the more reasonable it is to infer that a person would suffer humiliation
or distress from that action; consequently, somewhat more conclusory
evidence of emotional distress will be acceptable to support an award
for emotional damages. Nevertheless, the absence of supporting evidence
may affect the amount of damages appropriate in specific cases. Id.
The particulars of what relief may be awarded, and what proof is necessary
to obtain that relief, are set forth in detail in the Commission's
Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under
Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (July
14, 1992) (Enforcement 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. 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.
A. Pecuniary
Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses that are incurred as a result
of the employer'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. For claims seeking pecuniary damages,
such objective evidence should include documentation of out-of-pocket
expenses for all actual costs and an explanation of the expense, e.g.,
medical and psychological billings, other costs associated with the injury
caused by the agency's actions, and an explanation for the expenditure.
Id. at 9. The complainant requested $3,463.00 in past pecuniary
compensatory damages. However, the agency found that the complainant
was only entitled to $390.00 in past pecuniary damages. Specifically,
the agency determined that the complainant was entitled to $300.00 for
the hours necessary to prepare the analytical report, $30.00 for mileage
to attend the two-day hearing, and $60.00 in witness fees. The agency
also found that the complainant's claims for costs regarding copies,
mailing/postage, research materials, office supplies, long distance phone
calls/fax, and borrowed money (loans) from family members were denied
inasmuch the complainant did not provide any evidence to support these
charges. Taking into account the evidence of pecuniary damages submitted
by the complainant, we find the complainant's request to be excessive.
Therefore, the Commission finds the agency's award of $390.00 in past
pecuniary damages was appropriate. This amount takes into account past
out-of pocket expenses incurred as a result of intentional discrimination.
Regarding future pecuniary damages, the complainant asserted that he
is entitled to pecuniary damages, alleging that the non-selection has
caused him to be unable to earn a similar salary in his current position
as he would have received a promotion in 1995. The agency determined
that the complainant was not entitled to any future pecuniary damages.
Case law on the ability to recover future pecuniary damages states that
a complainant must show, �evidence suggesting that [an individual's]
injuries have narrowed the range of economic opportunities available
to him.� Gorniak v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 889 F.2d 481, 484
(3rd Cir. 1989). The evidence presented must show that �his injury
caused a diminution in his ability to earn a living.� id.
There is nothing in the record that remotely suggest that the
complainant's ability to earn a living has been affected by the
non-selection in 1995. First and foremost, the complainant voluntarily
resigned from the agency in December 1996, choosing to leave the field
of Corrections. Second, the complainant attended law school, and is now a
practicing attorney representing Bureau of Prisons employees in employment
discrimination cases, and as he states in his brief, is employed by
the Hartford Insurance Company. His economic opportunities are in
no way diminished from his non-selection for a Case Manager position.
There is absolutely no evidence that this non-selection destroyed his
development or his ambition as he stated in his brief to the Commission.
Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled to an future
pecuniary damages.
B. Non-pecuniary
We must now review whether or not the agency's award of $3,000.00 was
appropriate. There are no precise formulae for determining the amount
of damages for nonpecuniary losses. Nonpecuniary 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-Higgins. Ltd.,
727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1994). An award of compensatory damages for
nonpecuniary losses, including emotional harm, should reflect the extent
to which the respondent directly or proximately caused the harm and
the extent to which other factors also caused the harm. Id. 11-12. An
award of compensatory damages for nonpecuniary losses should also
reflect the nature and severity of the harm and the duration or expected
duration of the harm. Id. at 14. The Commission notes that for a proper
award of nonpecuniary 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); Androvich v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal
No. 01950533 (July 12, 1996).
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. Non-pecuniary damages must be
limited to the sums necessary to compensate the injured party for the
actual harm and should take into account the severity of the harm and
the length of the time the injured party has suffered from the harm.
Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July
17, 1995).
In support of his claim, the complainant submitted five sworn affidavits
from himself, his wife, two coworkers and a friend. No medical evidence
was submitted by the complainant. As a result of his nonselection,
the complainant complained of humiliation, frustration, loss of
self-confidence, headaches, nausea, stress, and that he could not
perform sexually in the same manner as before. He also claimed that
after non-selection that he and his family were forced to live �just
above the poverty line� and that his family �did not engage in any of
life's luxuries such as drinking and smoking, eating steak and lobster,
or going out for evening entertainment,� and that he could not afford
necessities such as diapers or baby formulas, milk and eggs.
Several Commission decision have awarded compensatory damages in cases
somewhat similar to the complainant's. See, e.g., Pryor v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01961884 (February 5, 1998)
($5,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages based on the complainant's statement
and testimony from his treating physician that he experienced anxiety and
stress resulting in tremors and a mild heart attack, sleep disturbances,
weight loss, and difficulty communicating with his adult children when he
was rejected for a position with the agency due to his mental disability);
Loving v. Department of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01955789 (August 29,
1997) ($3,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages where the complainant stated
that she became emotionally upset, suffered numbness, hair loss, and
severe headaches, and had four sessions with a psychologist as a result
of six episodes of race discrimination, noting that the award amount was
affected in part by the �weakness in proof... and lack of detail� in the
evidence the complainant provided); Turner v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 01964759 (September 24, 1998) ($2,000.00 in non-pecuniary
damages based on the complainant's testimony and statements from two
coworkers and treating physician that the complainant suffered emotional
distress, humiliation, and embarrassment as a result of a rejection and
two low performance ratings prompted by discriminatory animus, noting
that the complainant presented �scant amount of evidence concerning
his emotional distress and related symptoms, and the lack of objective
evidence supporting the alleged harm to his relationships with family
members and friends); and Harris v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC
Appeal No. 01966746 (December 11, 1998) ($2,000 in non-pecuniary damages
where the complainant stated that she suffered stress, low self-esteem,
fatigue, depression, and mental anguish, noting that no medical evidence
was presented connecting the emotional distress to the discriminatory
action and that other factors, including a difficult pregnancy contributed
to the emotional distress.
In the above referenced cases, the complainants in Pryor, Loving and
Turner submitted medical evidence to support their claims, whereas the
complainant in this matter has not provided any medical documentation to
support his assertions. While lack of medical evidence in and of itself
does not preclude damages see Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995), the absence of supporting evidence may
affect the amount of non-pecuniary damages deemed appropriate in specific
cases. Lawrence v. United States Postal Service, EEOC No. 01952288 (April
18, 1996). Given the evidence that was presented by the complainant,
and in comparing his case to other cases decided by the Commission,
we find that the agency's award of $3,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages
was appropriate.
Other Matters
The complainant also informed the Commission that he has not received
any of the relief that was awarded in the final agency decision dated
in January 1999 and that none of the remedies that had been ordered by
the AJ and the agency in the prior decisions have been complied with.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a), when a complainant believes that the
agency has failed to comply with its final action, the complainant shall
notify the agency EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance
within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the
alleged noncompliance. There is no evidence in the record that the agency
has responded to the complainant's claim for relief; therefore, we have
considered the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504. Regarding the
complainant's request for reinstatement and the AJ's recommendation
that the complainant be reinstated, it is well-settled that an agency
is not required to reinstate an employee as part of make-whole relief
where the employee has retired in the interim and there has been no
finding of constructive discharge. See Uyehara v. Dept. of the Navy,
EEOC Appeal No. 01933721 (May 9, 1994); Horton v. Dept. of Transportation,
EEOC Request No. 05880192 (July 5, 1988); Major v. Dept. of Defense, EEOC
Appeal No. 01851860 (July 8, 1987); Smith v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01841575 (February 8, 1985). In this case, the complainant
testified at his hearing that he retired from the agency in December 1996.
Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that the complainant
has filed an EEO complaint alleging constructive discharge nor has
he ever raised the issue with his EEO counselor, thus precluding the
Commission from addressing the issue. Therefore we find that the agency's
determination that the complainant is not entitled to reinstatement or
back pay beyond the date of his resignation was appropriate. Moreover,
we have determined that there is insufficient information in the record
to discern whether the agency has complied with its FAD dated January
26, 1999. Accordingly, we incorporate the agency's order below and
direct the agency to provide our Compliance Officer with evidence of
its actions in compliance with the Order.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically discussed in this decision, the Commission
AFFIRMS the final agency decision finding that the complainant is entitled
to $3,390.00 in compensatory damages.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action within sixty
(60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless
otherwise noted:
The agency shall award the complainant mitigated back pay and interest
between July 7, 1995, when he should have been selected as Case Manager,
and December 31, 1996, when the complainant resigned from employment with
the agency.<1> Documentation showing that such payments have been made,
and the manner of calculation of such payments, must be submitted to
the Compliance Officer, as referenced below.
The agency shall pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred in accordance
with the paragraph below entitled, �Attorney Fees.�
The agency shall post a notice of the finding of discrimination in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled, �Posting Order.�
The agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the
responsible management official. The agency shall report its decision
regarding the disciplinary action to the Commission. If the agency
decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken.
If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set
forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
The agency shall conduct EEO training for the responsible management
official cited in the complaint at issue herein. Such training shall
include, but not be limited to, training on the agency's obligations
under Title VII.
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which this decision
becomes final, the agency shall tender to the complainant past pecuniary
damages in the amount of $390.00.
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which this decision
becomes final, the agency shall tender to the complainant nonpecuniary
damages in the amount of $3,000.00.
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 of the
agency's calculation of backpay and other benefits due the complainant,
including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its Federal Correctional Institution
in Danbury, Connecticut, 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 (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 (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
December 18, 2002
__________________
Date
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
An Agency of the United States Government
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 the Department of
Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons).
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee
or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing,
promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of
employment.
The Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons) 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 Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons) was found to
have unlawfully discriminated against the individual affected by the
Commission's findings on the basis of race and sex when he was not
selected for the Case Manager position in July 1995. The agency shall
therefore remedy the discrimination by immediately paying mitigated back
wages, reasonable attorneys fees, and compensatory damages. The facility
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.
The Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons) 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
1The AJ's order instructed that the complainant be reinstated to the Case
Manager position retroactive to July 7, 1995. However, the complainant
is not entitled to reinstatement because the record does not indicate
that his resignation from the agency in December 1996 was the result of
constructive discharge.