Regarding the severity and duration of claims for compensation, most complainants don’t understand the need to keep notes, receipts, a diary and all the proof and evidence as possible.
A recurring theme on this website is, how the federal agency and even the EEOC judges use the law to lower the value of your EEOC claim. The laws are clear on how to value your case, and that the agency and the EEOC decide the value of your claim based on similar cases.
Duration is not long if the discrimination only happened once, but once is to much for this to happen in the first place. The harassment turns into a hostile work environment immediately.
Since the duration was short for the discrimination to take place, the value is similarly going to be small. The punishment should go directly to the agency, and the award to the complainant, but why penalize the complainant for trying to stop the discrimination in its infancy?
It is quite possible that if you don’t wait until several discrimination’s occur, that your entire claim can be thrown out, as not meeting the criteria for a discrimination.
What the eeoc is basically saying is that if you let the discrimination go on for years without saying anything, then you decide to report it, the non pecuniary award will be much higher.
This is erred and sends the wrong message about working in a hostile environment.
Several Commission decisions have awarded compensatory damages in cases
which, while not identical to complainant’s, nonetheless are instructive.
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 the agency’s award of $8000 was
appropriate in this case. This amount takes into account the severity
and duration of the harm done to complainant by the agency’s actions as
established by complainant’s evidence. 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, albeit not identical,
cases. See Cygnar, 865 F.2d at 848; AIC Security Investigations, 823
F.Supp. 573 at 574.
