CASE E

The Administrative Judge found in the favor of the Complainant and ruled as follows: Pursuant to the Administrative Judge’s (“AJ”) August 5, 2021, Final Decision on Liability (“Decision”) in favor of the Complainant and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), as a prevailing party, she hereby submits her Verified Petition (“Petition”) for nonpecuniary damages in the amount of $300,000.00, costs in the amount of $4,457.70, and pecuniary damages of $9,535.00 for moving/storage expenses. The complainant’s petition is GRANTED. Here, the Complainant (“CP”) seeks $300,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. (See CP Damages Statement, September 1, 2021, PP. 1-2; CP Reply in Support of Petition for an Award of Damages, September 21, 2021, PP. 1-7). The agency argues that the complainant is not entitled to damages because the relevant period for this case is limited to 2014. Moreover, the agency suggests that for there to be any damage to be awarded in this case, the harm to the complainant would have to be connected to and caused by some treatment she received at work in the 2014 time period. The agency also argues that the complainant has not proven harassment or discrimination occurred from 2015 through 2017. (Agency’s Response to Complainant’s Damages Petition, dated September 17, 2021). The AJ is also unpersuaded by the agency’s submission of a subsequent (after the time period that is the subject of the instant complaint of discrimination) finding of “no discrimination” by a different Birmingham District Office AJ. In fact, given the allegations in that particular complaint made by Complainant, it leads this AJ to believe that AH Sims was still harassing Complainant during the time period alleged by Complainant in that case. In determining the damages for this case, the following have been reviewed and considered: Report of Investigation (“ROI”), deposition testimony (Dep. Testimony), statements from witnesses, briefs, exhibits, medical records, and other evidence in the record. Multiple documents in the Hearing Record support the AJ’s determination that the Agency is liable for the sexual harassment Complainant was subjected to by AH. Specifically, a review of the hearing record reveals that the statements of numerous individuals, including the complainant and multiple witnesses, including M.D., chief of mental health service and chief of staff, support a finding that the agency is responsible for perpetrating a work environment that subjected the complainant to sexual harassment by AH. Therefore, the agency is liable for its failure to take effective remedial action in keeping AH from the complainant’s work area.