In examining other cases awarding non-pecuniary compensatory damages
in similar circumstances, we find that the amounts awarded, even with
a deduction for pre-existing conditions, were higher than the $15,000
awarded by the AJ in this case. In Carlson v. Department of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A51437 (April 27, 2005), we awarded the complainant
$30,000, for a finding of discrimination based on reprisal, where the
complainant testified that he experienced depression, anger, alienation,
humiliation, embarrassment, and a loss of status, and his therapist,
wife, and other family members confirmed his symptoms. In other cases
finding discrimination based on reprisal where the complainant described
feelings of shame, humiliation, low-self esteem, and a loss of status,
the Commission awarded amounts from $25,000 to $60,000, depending on the
time periods involved and other factors. See, e.g., Levy v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A01561 (May 12, 2003) ($60,0000);
Arreola v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03342 (January 17,
2002) (c. $ 50,000); Arizola v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC
Appeal No. 07A30132 (February 4, 2004) ($50,000); Holliday v. Department
of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03047 (June 12, 2002) ($50,000);
Washington v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 07A50033
(March 25, 2005) ($25,000).
Based upon our review of the entire record in this matter, complainant’s
submission, and arguments on appeal not specifically addressed, we find
that complainant is entitled to an award of $40,000 in non-pecuniary
compensatory damages. This award is based on the harm experienced as a
result of the agency’s actions, takes into account the severity of the
harm and the period of time that the complainant experienced the harm, is
not “monstrously excessive” standing alone, is not the product of passion
or prejudice, and it is not inconsistent with awards in similar cases.
Further, because the agency is only responsible for those damages that
are clearly shown to be caused by its actions, this amount takes into
consideration that complainant had pre-existing medical conditions that
may have affected the impact of Dr. S’s discriminatory actions.
===============================================================
In the following case, the complainant submitted examples of similar cases, and the awards given. She demonstrated a proper case of damages and injury, and in the end was awarded $15,000.00 more than the agencies offer.
On appeal, complainant cited to cases similar to her own where the
complainants were awarded between $40,000 and $75,000 in non-pecuniary
damages. She has provided evidence, through medical records and various
statements, of the effects of the agency’s discrimination. Based on
the objective evidence reviewed above, we find that the agency’s award
of $30,000 is inadequate to compensate complainant for the emotional
distress she suffered due to CW’s harassment.
Complainant’s condition appeared to last at least two years in duration;
she experienced daily anxiety, increased stress, feelings of depression,
and gastrointestinal problems; she encountered difficulty sleeping
and concentrating; and she had to seek counseling, to include 18
one-on-one sessions and 24 group counseling sessions, due to the agency’s
discriminatory conduct. The Commission has awarded non-pecuniary damages
in the amount of $45,000.00 in similar cases. Accordingly, taking into
account the evidence of non-pecuniary damages submitted by complainant,
the Commission finds that she is entitled to non-pecuniary damages
in the amount of $45,000.00. Turner v. Department of Interior, EEOC
Appeal No. 01956390 (April 27, 1998) ($40,000 in non-pecuniary damages
awarded where the agency subjected complainant to sexual harassment and
retaliation, which resulted in depression, anger, anxiety, frustration,
sleeplessness, crying spells, and loss of self-esteem); Amen v. United
States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A10069 (January 6, 2003)
($50,000.00 award in non-pecuniary damages where complainant suffered
prolonged mental anguish, depression, humiliation, insomnia, etc.,
as a result of the agency’s discriminatory actions). Our determination
considers the emotional and physical symptoms described by complainant,
her psychologist, her daughter, father, and brother and her friends.
We further find that this award is not motivated by passion or prejudice,
is not monstrously excessive, and is consistent with Commission precedent.
See Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 848 (7th Cir. 1989);
EEOC v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 823 F. Supp. 571, 574
(N.D. Ill. 1993).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency’s decision is modified and remanded for further
processing in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The agency is ordered to take the following remedial action:
Within sixty (60) days from the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall pay complainant $45,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory
damages.
==================================================================
Several Commission decisions have addressed compensatory damages in
cases similar to complainant’s. See Bever v. United States Department
of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01953949 (October 31, 1996) ($15,000.00
awarded for situational anxiety, uncontrolled crying, weight loss and
a diagnosis of Depression); Campbell v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01961474 (September 10, 1999) ($20,000.00 awarded
for continuous and long-lasting emotional and physical distress, with
difficulty sleeping, frequent anxiety, crying episodes, headaches and
nosebleeds, causing complainant to decline most overtime work and take
sick and annual leave to escape the harassment); Terrell v. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Appeal No. 01961030 (October
25, 1996) RTR Denied, EEOC Request No. 05970336 (November 20, 1997)
($25,000.00 awarded for sleep problems, frequent crying, weight loss,
depression, embarrassment, mental anguish, loss of both self-esteem and
enjoyment of life, and disruption of complainant’s relationships with his
wife, family, and friends, lasting approximately two and a half years,
but mitigated by evidence that other factors unrelated to agency’s
discrimination contributed to complainant’s distress);
