By Deryn Sumner, August 16, 2017
As part of our continuing discussion of recent decisions on compensatory damages from the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations, I bring you Sang G. v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151360 (July 28, 2017). This case addressed both an award of compensatory damages and of attorney’s fees to a complainant who was successful in bringing a claim of discrimination and received a FAD from the agency finding retaliation. The complainant worked as an Immigration Enforcement Agent and had been terminated during his probationary period. He filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, parental status, and reprisal. There were fourteen issues raised as part of his formal complaint, the most egregious being a claim that the Firing Range Instructor “freely used the word n**** on several occasions.” In the end, the Agency issued a Final Agency Decision finding the complainant established retaliation when he was placed on administrative leave, suspended of his authority to carry a firearm, and terminated during his probationary period.
The Agency reinstated the complainant and investigated the complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. After considering the evidence presented, the Agency issued a second FAD finding $15,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages was sufficient.
The complainant filed an appeal to OFO and the Commission agreed that $25,000 was more appropriate, given the circumstances at hand. The complainant stated that after his termination, he was not able to afford mental health treatment and “his resultant inability to obtain new employment served as a constant reminder of the Agency’s actions and exacerbated his depression over an extended period of time.” He also asserted that he experienced extreme anxiety and panic attacks, could not sleep, and drank to excess.
The Commission noted that the complainant presented evidence to demonstrate he endured emotional distress that resulted in him separating from his wife and losing respect from his son. This, coupled with the complainant’s inability to obtain health care, warranted an increase in the award from $15,000 to $25,000.
This award seems low, given the harm claimed by the complainant because of his termination from the Agency. I wonder if the fact that the complainant was unable to obtain mental health treatment due to his lack of health insurance impacted the amount of the award he received.
The decision also addressed the complainant’s appeal of the award of attorneys fees, which the Agency had reduced by 75%. The Commission found that this reduction was unwarranted and increased the amount from $6,379.35 to $25,517.39 to compensate the complainant for attorneys fees and costs. Sumner@FELTG.com