Rhoda A. Batieste, Complainant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 26, 2000
01974616 (E.E.O.C. May. 26, 2000)

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.