Out of pocket expenses are reimbursed if you win your EEOC Discrimination Claim
Here’s an explanation of what is and is not a legal requirement of pecuniary damages.
A. Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary damages are available for out of pocket expenses shown to be related to the discriminatory conduct. Typically these damages include reimbursement for medical expenses, job hunting expenses, moving expenses and other quantitative out of pocket expenses.
The Commission requires documentation in support of these expenses, typically in the form of receipts, bills, or physician’s statements.
Complainant has requested pecuniary damages for mileage, driving time and lost future earnings.<2> We note that the agency reimbursed complainant a total of $6,840.00 for mileage, denied compensation for driving time because it was not a pecuniary expense, and denied compensation for lost future earnings since the evidence of the nature, extent and duration of such loss was insufficient to establish entitlement.
We affirm the agency’s determination that $6,840.00 was sufficient to compensate complainant for his mileage, and we agree with the agency’s determination that complainant cannot receive pecuniary damages for the extra driving time associated with the commute to Miami. While we may factor this inconvenience into a non-pecuniary damage award, the time complainant spent driving to and from work is not a pecuniary expense.
Time complainant spent driving to and from work is not a pecuniary expense
We also agree with the agency that complainant’s claim for lost future earnings is not supported by the evidence. Damages for lost future earning capacity are generally awarded in personal injury cases but
also have been awarded in employment discrimination cases. Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17,1995).
An award of damages for lost earning capacity comports with Title VII’s goal of providing make-whole relief to the victims of discrimination. The Commission requires that the impairment of earning capacity be shown
with reasonable certainty or reasonable probability, and there must be evidence which will permit the fact finder to arrive at a pecuniary value for the loss. While we note that complainant elected to take disability retirement in March 1994, the evidence does not establish that had the agency not discriminated against him, he would have remained in its employ. Moreover, complainant has not presented evidence that the agency’s discriminatory act caused a diminution in his ability to earn a living.
