In Morris v. Rumsfield, 3rd Cir., No. 04-1808, 2005 WL 2000955 (August 22, 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that when a federal employee challenges any part of the administrative disposition of his or her discrimination claims, the court must review not only the remedy, but also the issue of liability. Although the circuit courts are currently split on this issue, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the Tenth Circuit and D.C. Circuit in holding that a federal employee who challenges the amount of compensatory damages awarded in an administrative proceeding must re-litigate the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint.
William Morris worked as a forklift operator for the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Mr. Morris suffered from degenerative disc disease, arthritis, and hypertension. Mr. Morris submitted medical documentation that indicated that he should be reassigned to an office job as a reasonable accommodation of his disabilities. DLA refused to reassign Mr. Morris. A few months later, Mr. Morris suffered a workplace injury to his back that rendered him unable to work or care for himself for approximately two months. As a result of this injury, Mr. Morris suffered permanent symptoms.
Mr. Morris filed an EEO complaint alleging that the DLA failed to accommodate his disability and subjected him to discrimination. The Administrative Judge agreed that the DLA made no effort to accommodate Mr. Morris’ disability, but did not find that the DLA discriminated against Mr. Morris after he made these requests. The DLA issued a final agency decision in which it rejected the Administrative Judge’s finding. On appeal, the EEOC restored the Administrative Judge’s finding and remanded the case to DLA for a determination of damages. The DLA then issued a decision in which it awarded Mr. Morris $12,500 in compensatory damages.
Unhappy with the amount of damages awarded, Mr. Morris decided not to appeal this decision to the EEOC, but to instead file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Morris moved for summary judgment on the issue of the DLA’s liability, and sought a jury trial on the sole issue of compensatory damages. Mr. Morris argued that because the issues of liability and damages were determined in separate agency decisions, the Court of Appeals could review the damages issue de novo while leaving the issue of liability undisturbed. A de novo review is a new trial in which the evidence in the case is presented and reviewed.
The Court of Appeals agreed that Mr. Morris’ suit was one to which this de novo standard applied, but held that this review was not limited to the issue of compensatory damages, but also extended necessarily to the merits of the underlying complaint. The Court of Appeals referred to the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the statute under which Mr. Morris was able to bring his suit in federal court. This statute allows the federal court to provide a remedy if the court finds discrimination occurred. The Court of Appeals asserted that this language indicated that a judicial remedy (such as an award of compensatory damages) must depend on a judicial (not administrative) finding of discrimination. The Court of Appeals remanded Mr. Morris’ suit for a determination of liability.
Federal employees who have pursued an EEO complaint and have received an administrative finding of discrimination will need to carefully consider whether to accept the administrative finding and damages award, or to re-litigate these issues in a civil action. Although the employee may not agree with the amount of damages awarded, there is a risk that a trial de novo in a federal district court, in which both liability and damages are considered, may not yield a finding of discrimination and thus would preclude the award of any damages.
* This information is provided by the attorneys at
Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to
the representation of federal employees worldwide.
For more information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C.,
go to http://www.passmanandkaplan.com.
The attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C, are also
the authors of The Federal Employees Legal Survival Guide,
Second Edition, a comprehensive overview of federal employees’
legal rights. To order your copy, go to
