the agency provided “information, references, and instructions” to complainant “as a guide to you for your submission.”
Further, we find that the agency fully explained to complainant that it
was her obligation to demonstrate that she was entitled to compensatory
damages. After receipt of her submissions of January 23, February 10, and
March 18, 2004, the agency informed complainant that the information and
evidence she provided was insufficient to support a claim for compensatory
damages and attorney’s fees and costs. In its letter of March 29,
2004, the agency provided “information, references, and instructions” to
complainant “as a guide to you for your submission.” The agency went
on to explain the different types of compensatory damages available
and advised her that specific information, supported by documentation,
must be included in her claim. She was informed that average costs
or an average number of doctor visits was not acceptable and did not
establish entitlement to compensatory damages. The agency explained to
complainant that “you have the burden of coming forward with sufficient
proof of damages…and how those losses relate to the discriminatory
conduct.” Letter, p. 3. In addition, the agency presented a list of
specific questions to guide complainant in development of her claim.
Finally, we find that complainant has not shown that she is entitled
to damages for health-related reasons. She did not show that her
medical conditions, described in her statement and medical report,
were not caused by, or a result of, the agency’s discriminatory action
in September 2000. In support of this finding, we note that no medical
documentation connected her health conditions, or exacerbation of her
health conditions, to the agency’s action in September 2000. Also,
complainant did not show that she is entitled to compensatory damages
for lack of future award and promotions; other than her own speculation,
she did not present probative evidence in support of this claim, nor
has she presented any evidence that the agency’s discrimination was
causally related to raising her grandson or the loss of enjoyment of
family and friends. A letter from her daughter describing her mother’s
behavior referenced only her exasperation over the EEO process and not
the actual non-selection. For these reasons, we find that complainant
is not entitled to compensatory damages.<5>
