01a31040
12-01-2003
Henry Laughlin, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Henry Laughlin v. United States Postal Service
01A31040
12/1/03
.
Henry Laughlin,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31040
Agency No. 1D-1305-93
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his claim of compensatory damages which arose from
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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal
is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons,
the Commission MODIFIES the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Mailhandler at the agency's Greensboro, North Carolina
facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed
a formal complaint on May 3, 1993, alleging that he was discriminated
against on the basis of race (Black), sex (male), age (47), disability
(herniated disc and lumbar degenerative disease) and reprisal when he
was issued a Notice of Removal dated January 8, 1993, for failure to
meet the physical requirements of the position.
On appeal from the agency's final decision, the Office of Federal
Operations reversed that portion of the agency's final decision which
found no disability discrimination, and determined complainant had
been discriminated against when he was issued the Notice of Removal.
Among other things, the agency was ordered to conduct a supplemental
investigation into complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages
and issue a second final decision.
On August 22, 2002, the agency issued its final decision and determined
complainant was entitled to $5,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages.
Specifically, the agency determined that although complainant was issued
the Notice of Removal, it was rescinded in August 1993. Furthermore,
the agency states that the record reveals complainant was unable to work
following his removal due to his injury, therefore, he cannot establish
that any of his financial hardship was due to the discrimination.
Moreover, the Office of Worker's Compensation Programs (OWCP) approved
complainant's injury claim retroactive to February 1993. Accordingly,
complainant could not have suffered financially because he received
compensation from OWCP.
The agency also contends that complainant did not submit any medical
documentation to support his claim that he suffered from depression due to
his failure to provide financially for his family. Although complainant's
wife submitted a statement, the agency found that she revealed that
factors other than the discrimination could have contributed to
complainant's emotional distress.
Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal. The agency requests
that we affirm its FAD.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. The absence of supporting evidence,
however, may affect the amount of damages appropriate in specific cases.
Lawrence, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288.
In his affidavit, complainant states that he has suffered greatly
as a result of his removal from the agency. He states that he sought
counseling from the Department of Veteran's Affairs and his minister for
depression due to his inability to provide financially for his family
after his removal. Complainant states that at times, for periods of
one or two weeks, he was unable to leave his house due to the emotional
distress. He recalls that he was placed on medications and began smoking
and drinking after his removal.
Complainant's wife corroborates his claims, and states that complainant
was distraught after his removal, and felt as if he had let his family
down. She recalls that creditors called due to inability to pay bills,
and that she was forced to obtain food stamps. Their marriage suffered
and in March 1994, they separated.
As an initial matter, we find that complainant established a causal
connection between the discriminatory action and the resulting emotional
distress. Both complainant and his wife credibly recalled complainant's
emotional distress, discussed it within the relevant time frame, and
established that the discrimination was the proximate cause of his
emotional distress.
The agency essentially argues that complainant could not have suffered
financial problems because he was retroactively compensated by the OWCP
during the time of his removal and the rescission of his removal. After a
careful review of the record, we do not agree with the agency's contention
in this regard. The prior decision determined complainant had not yet
been placed into a position with the agency following the rescission
of the notice of removal. The record supports complainant's testimony
that he suffered financially because of the agency's actions, and the
agency failed to provide sufficient evidence for the record in rebuttal.
Indeed, complainant's wife recalls that complainant's depression continued
after he was compensated by OWCP and began drinking at that time.
Furthermore, the agency argues that complainant cannot prove that
he suffered financially after the rescission of his removal notice
because he was physically unable to work. The record contains a letter
dated September 21, 1999, six years after the events in question,
from complainant's physician who reports that complainant cannot work
for an "indefinite period of time." Accordingly there is insufficient
evidence in the record that complainant suffered financial problems
due to factors other than the discrimination, such as physical injury,
during the relevant period of time. Rather, the record supports the
notion that complainant was qualified for a sedentary position during
the relevant time period. Complainant established the requisite causal
connection between the discrimination and his emotional distress.
Complainant's testified that he suffered anxiety, depression,
relationship strain, and financial stress due to the agency's actions.
He states he sought counseling and was placed on medication. His wife
states that she was required to obtain food stamps in March 1993.
Accordingly, we find the agency's award of $5,000 inappropriate, and
award complainant $40,000.00. See, e.g., Arreola v. Dep't of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A03342 (January 17, 2002)($52,000.00 in non-pecuniary
damages where the complainant and relatives stated that complainant
suffered anxiety, isolation, depression, stress, humiliation, and injury
to reputation when the agency terminated him); Campos v. Dep't of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A03368 (January 25, 2002) ($52,000.00 in non-pecuniary
damages where the complainant and relatives stated that complainant
experienced relationship strain, isolation, stress, humiliation,
depression and injury to reputation as a result of his termination);
Morra-Morrison v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01976222 (May 12,
2000) ($60,000 award for non-pecuniary damages where the agency failed
to reasonably accommodate complainant and terminated her more than once,
which resulted in depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, low self-esteem,
marital problems, and alienation).
The Commission MODIFIES the agency's final order and directs the agency
to take corrective 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 from the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall pay complainant $40,000 in non-pecuniary 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 shall include supporting documentation verifying
that the corrective action has been implemented.
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
12/1/03
Date