The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission awarded a complainant $50,000 due to the Department of Agriculture’s failure to accommodate the complainant’s pre-existing back injury for six years. See Ferguson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120064277 (March 13, 2009). The complainant worked as a community and business programs technician, and her position involved filing. In April 1998, she filed an EEO complaint alleging that since March 1998, she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability when the agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Additionally, the complainant claimed she was discriminated against on the bases of sex, age and disability, creating a hostile work environment.
The agency issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) that found against the complainant on her hostile work environment claim, but held that the agency did discriminate by failing to accommodate her disability. However, the agency did not award the complainant any compensatory damages since it concluded that management did not act in bad faith in failing to accommodate complainant. The complainant appealed the FAD. The Commission affirmed the agency’s findings, but held that the complainant was entitled to compensatory damages because the agency failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. See Ferguson v. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01A33341 (July 22, 2004). Thus, the Commission ordered the agency to conduct an investigation on the issue of compensatory damages and allow the complainant to establish a causal relationship between the denial of reasonable accommodation and her pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.
In the supplemental investigation, the complainant requested $300,000 in compensatory damages since her back condition was "greatly aggravated" by the agency’s six-year failure to accommodate her by relieving her filing duties. She explained that when she filed, she suffered a "great deal of pain" that lasted for several days and that her pain medication was not effective, which meant she was unable to sleep well or complete household chores.
Subsequently, when the agency requested additional information to support the causal relationship, the complainant requested $500,000 in compensatory damages instead of $300,000. She explained that because of the failure to accommodate, she hyperventilated; almost passed out; no longer went to a physician because the physician told her that there is nothing that can be done for her back; her pain mediation failed to relieve her pain; suffered from nausea; could not engage in household chores such as mowing the lawn or cleaning; experienced sleeplessness; and stopped gardening, refinishing furniture and grooming her dogs because of the pain. Additionally, the complainant submitted statements from her co-workers and a friend that corroborated how the agency’s inaction adversely affected her physical and emotional health. The agency determined that the complainant was entitled to $25,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages for its failure to provide complainant with a reasonable accommodation for six years.
The complainant appealed the agency’s decision to the Commission, contending that she was entitled to the maximum amount of compensatory damages since the agency’s failure to accommodate was a "deliberate act." The Commission explained that the maximum amount it could award was $300,000. To obtain relief, the Commission explained that the complainant must submit evidence to show that the agency’s discriminatory conduct directly or proximately caused the losses for which damages are sought. Additionally, the amount awarded should reflect the extent to which an agency’s discriminatory actions directly or proximately caused the losses or harm to the complainant; the nature and severity of the harm; and the duration or expected duration of the harm.
After assessing the evidence, the Commission found the complainant’s pre-existing back condition was exacerbated by the agency’s failure to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, causing her to sometimes hyperventilate, inability to perform household chores and engage in previously enjoyed hobbies, suffer from insomnia, experience nausea and live in pain since mediation became ineffective. Accordingly, the Commission awarded the complainant $50,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages due to the number of years complainant suffered without an accommodation and that such an award was in line with the Commission’s precedent. See Duncan v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120064557 (April 4, 2008) (Commission awarded $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages to complainant who was not accommodated and whose medical condition was exacerbated to the extent that she had difficulty sleeping and was unable to perform household chores); Ortiz v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01A15376 (September 25, 2002) (Commission awarded $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages to a complainant, who was denied an accommodation for his disability and experienced emotional distress, sleeplessness, insomnia, depression and ulcers); and Williams v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01990520 (February 14, 2002) (Commission awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages to a complainant who was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability and who experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, depression and homicidal and suicidal thoughts).
* 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 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 https://www.fedweek.com/pubs/index.php This book has been selling for $49.95 plus s&h for over two years, but as a special offer to FEDweek readers, we’ve reduced the price to only $29.95 plus s&h.