Just being discriminated against while at work, is not an instant reward for reporting. There is nothing instant about winning an award from a federal agency. You must first meet the legal standard.
A. Legal Standards for an Award of Compensatory Damages
Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA 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.<1> 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.
The Commission applies the principle that “a tortfeasor takes its
victims as it finds them.” Wallis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01950510 (November 13, 1995) (quoting Williamson v. Handy Button
Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290, 1295 (7th Cir. 1987). The Commission
also applies two exceptions to this general rule. First, when a
complainant has a pre-existing condition, the agency is liable only
for the additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination.
Second, if the complainant’s pre-existing condition inevitably would have
worsened, the agency is entitled to a reduction in damages reflecting
the extent to which the condition would have worsened even absent the
discrimination; the burden of proof being on the agency to establish the
extent of this entitlement. Wallis, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (citing
Maurer v. United States, 668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981); Finlay v. U.S. Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942985 (April 29, 1997). The Commission
notes, however, that complainant is entitled to recover damages only
for injury, or additional injury, caused by the agency’s discriminatory
actions. Terrell v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Appeal
No. 01961030 (October 25, 1996); EEOC Notice No. N 915.002 at 12.
