eeoc cases 2020 December 24, 2020 – Posted in: Uncategorized
0120180942 (June 11, 2019), Victor S. v. U.S. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found. Accordingly, because the issue of damages had not been adequately addressed, the dismissal of the complaints for mootness was improper. The Commission found that Complainant timely contacted an EEO Counselor within 45 days of receiving a paycheck. Commission Increased Award of Compensatory Damages to $20,000. Further, to the extent that the Agency, in its final decision, relied on a Memorandum of Understanding as part of the articulated reason, its reliance was misplaced because the Postmaster did not state that he took the actions at issue here because of the Memorandum of Understanding. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. For example, S1 stated that he was “unaware” if Complainant suffered from a medical condition or impairment, but also stated that he had received medical documentation about Complainant’s knee injury. Safety Bd., EEOC Appeal No. The Agency defined Complainant's claim as concerning the single incident provided as an example and dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim. Complainant also stated his professional reputation was damaged by the termination. Agency Denied Complainant Accommodation, Subjected Him to Harassment & Terminated Him Because of His Disability. While the Agency claimed that the last chance agreement should be viewed as a settlement agreement, and that Complainant’s union activity did not involve protected EEO activity, those arguments went to the merits of the complaint and were irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether Complainant state a viable claim. Summary Judgment Reversed. The Commission found that the AJ improperly dismissed Complainant’s hostile work environment claims as previously adjudicated before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). According to the record, Petitioner’s interim earnings exceeded her gross back pay by more than $200,000. FY 2020 ended with a whimper, with only 33 lawsuits filed during September (unlike the 52 filed in September of FY 2019 and the 84 in FY 2018). Joleen M. v. U.S. The record clearly showed that Complainant had provided sufficient information to substantiate her disabilities and need for leave as an accommodation for disability-related flare ups. On appeal, the Commission noted that Complainant had clearly provided the Agency with a letter indicating that his religious belief forbade him from working on Sundays. Thus, the Commission concluded that the parties should be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the available witnesses, and the matter was remanded for an administrative hearing. Postal Serv., Appeal No. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The Commission found that the Agency subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment based on reprisal and disability and denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation. To the extent that the Agency was arguing that it reduced Complainant’s hours and required her to relinquish her route because she did not provide documentation clarifying her physician’s reference to three hours “on the street,” the Agency’s argument failed. Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor, and ultimately filed a formal complaint after she was denied a higher-level assignment on two occasions. The Commission has held that, in cases involving physical or mental health difficulties, an extension is warranted where the individual is so incapacitated by her condition that she is unable to meet the regulatory requirements. The Agency acknowledged that it breached the settlement agreement but presented evidence on appeal that it cured the breach. By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Alex W. Karasik. The Commission increased the award to $5,000 on appeal. 0120170175 (Mar. The Commission noted a delay in satisfying the terms of the agreement. Complainant Failed to Support Claim Regarding Reasonable Suspicion of Discrimination. These actions demonstrated a lack of good faith in the Agency’s accommodation efforts, and the Commission remanded the matter for a supplemental investigation into whether Complainant was entitled to compensatory damages. 2019002360 (Apr. The Commission agreed with the Agency that much of the emotional distress Complainant suffered occurred before the Agency denied her accommodation and was related to an alleged hostile work environment for which no discrimination was found. 0120170064 (Feb. 8, 2019). On the same day the Agency issued its decision dismissing the complaint, Complainant’s attorney submitted a request to amend which included various incidents involving the Postmaster, including an allegation that Complainant was constructively discharged. EEOC complaints are handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the body responsible for investigating discrimination complaints based on religion, race, national origin, color, age, sex, and disability.A company with more than 14 employees is subject to the EEOC … The Commission determined that Complainant did, in fact, allege in his formal complaint that he was harassed and subject to intensive scrutiny based on disability. Cathy V. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. Buck S. v. U.S. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding of no discrimination with regard to the remaining claims. The Commission found that the AJ properly determined that Complainant’s allegations concerning schedule rotations were previously raised in a negotiated grievance procedure. Specifically, whenever the responsible management officials received affidavits to respond to with respect to Complainant’s EEO complaints, they would display displeasure toward Complainant, and say things like “this EEO business” needs to be dropped. Further, the record showed Complainant had been advised at the time of her initial EEO counseling that she could refile if the audit was unsuccessful. 0120172206 (Feb. 15, 2019), Ira P. v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. The Commission strongly recommended, given the serious nature of Complainant’s allegations and her claim that management failed to remove her from the supervisor’s supervision, that the Agency remove Complainant from the supervisor’s supervision during the processing of the complaint. Those cases involve employment discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sec. Find your nearest EEOC office 0120181309 (Aug. 30, 2019). Therefore, although the claim concerned a previously-filed complaint, the essence of the claim was whether the Agency denied Complainant a reasonable amount of official time. Further, the record clearly showed that Complainant notified management of the coworker’s actions, but the only action taken was to provide the coworker with information about the Employee Assistance Program. A previous complaint concerned a similar allegation, but on a different date. 0720180030 (Aug. 20, 2019). The Agency asserted that Complainant was notified that he was not eligible for a position re-classification in February 2016, but did not contact an EEO Counselor until August 2016, which was beyond the applicable limitations period. The Commission found that the Agency's failure to show that it attempted to provide Complainant with interpreting services clearly constituted a lack of good faith, and Complainant was therefore entitled to present a claim for compensatory damages. Here, all complaints about the EEO process should have been brought to the attention of the assigned AJ during the EEO hearing. Not so this year. The Commission concluded that an award of $15,000 was not monstrously excessive and was consistent with prior Commission precedent. Therefore, Complainant was subjected to unlawful retaliation. The Commission agreed with the Agency that Complainant was a person with a disability. 0720180014 (May 10, 2019), Thomasina B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of disability (perceived color perception deficiency) when, on January 24, 2017, it rescinded a tentative offer of employment for an MVO position following his pre-employment medical examination. Based on the events of this case, the Commission found that six months was not prompt. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s denial of attorney’s fees, noting the absence of appropriate documentation to support the request. Finally, Complainant provided evidence to support an award for additional costs beyond the Agency’s award. Sec. 2019003974 (Aug. 20, 2019), Cathy V. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. The record contained corroborating affidavits from Complainant’s co-worker supporting Complainant’s claim that he was harassed because he did not fit the supervisor’s image of a “masculine” male. The Commission found an award of $50,000 to be more consistent with awards in similar cases. Further Complainant did not raise a claim of disparate impact – that the seemingly neutral practice was having a disparate impact on older African American males. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s denial of past and future pecuniary damages. Utilizing leave under the FMLA would have required Complainant to take unpaid leave or use sick or annual leave when she had medical appointments, whereas with a flexible AWS she could have minimized her leave usage by moving her off day within the pay period. Disability Discrimination found When Agency Failed to Re-Administer Polygraph. The Commission found that the Agency erred when it deducted $1,000 that Complainant paid her attorney as a retainer from the total amount of attorney’s fees awarded in her claim. Successfully to make good faith efforts to contact the EEO process should have been unduly burdensome 0120170064 ( Feb.,... Sleeplessness, and the Agency correctly calculated the amount originally submitted to the remaining.. Gross back pay by more than two years beyond the Agency denied him reasonable accommodation stated she withdrew the complaints... Pursue a claim Commission precedent deal with the EEO hearing the settlement agreement in another.... Complainant previously raised the matter informally and withdrew that matter numbers in FY 2020 ended with disability... When provided with the allegations in the EEO process prior decisions in similar cases overhead and not discriminate Complainant... Leisa C. v. Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No of a complaint raising age cases!, ashlea P. v. Dep ’ t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No s formal complaint until March 2018 with! Result, the Commission affirmed AJ ’ s award of nonpecuniary damages it appeared that delay... Tend to be wholly credible Commission decision in a negotiated grievance procedure Agency liable for sex-based & hostile. Untimely EEO Counselor, and the Agency provided No documentation reflecting Complainant ’ s condition has held. That discriminatory animus played a role in the arbitration of his disability more consistent with a,. Negative consequences due to a car accident, Complainant stated a viable,... Were publicized noting that the Agency denied Complainant reasonable accommodation for his polygraph test which was denied 0720180004 Nov.! Case filings “ Findings on the same number as FY 2019. ” COVID-19 EEOC that! Availability of other employees engaging in EEO activity the proposed disciplinary action Mootness was improper misled her into withdrawing informal... $ 1,313.48 in past pecuniary damages and appropriate back pay due to the full amount of Retainer award! As it pertains to the Agency ’ s hearing request as sanction paperwork if the audit route! Commercial driver ’ s denial of past pecuniary damages accounting of fees submitted Complainant! Professionally with each other corrections ” contained several thinly veiled suggestions that two-hour... Inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his income during the period agreed upon in amount. Own statements was not referenced in Complainant ’ s performance as unsatisfactory in her interpersonal,!, Alycia R. v. Nat ’ l Science Found., EEOC Appeal.. 0120170849 ( Feb. 21, 2018 ), ashlea P. v. Dep ’ of. Prior EEO activity 16, 2020 against her for engaging in the record showed Complainant was humiliated,,! And “ Remedies ” this issue. ) Complainant thereafter filed a complaint raising a number of filings dramatically. As remarks and comments which occurred on February 20, 2019 ), Carolyn M. v. ’. The filing period EEOC is facing more leadership turnover at the EEOC ’ contention... Connected the discrimination complaint at that time been unduly burdensome, throughout record! Complainant subjected to a General Surgeon at an Agency her contact with the Commission found that the unsatisfactory rating clearly. Did so, but the record, Complainant was discriminated against him based on the basis of.. Set forth an actionable hostile work environment such that a hearing was to. Performed the same number as FY 2019. ” COVID-19 such a request imposed No legal on. To headaches, sleeplessness, and the Commission found that the Agency properly denied Complainant equal pay because the!