(843) 303-9532

CASE A: The Administrative Judge rules as follows: Complainant, pursuant to the Administrative Judge’s (“AJ”) June 30, 2022 Decision in favor of Complainant and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), as a prevailing party, was awarded nonpecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000.00, costs in the amount of $9,015.86, and front pay in the amount of $245,883.00. 

CASE B: The Administrative Judge rules as follows: In connection with the captioned matter, Complainant seeks: (I) removal of the letter of caution and the letter of reprimand from her personnel files; (2) reinstatement to a position, including transportation agreement, living quarters allowance, and other costs related to reinstatement; (3) past pecuniary, compensatory damages; (4) non-pecuniary, compensatory damages; and (5) litigation costs. To the extent that it has not already done so, within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Agency issues a final order in this matter, the Agency shall expunge the April 22, 2015 Letter of Caution and the May 13, 2016 Letter of Reprimand from all personnel and associated Agency records. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Agency issues a final order in this matter, the Agency is ORDERED to offer Complainant reinstatement to an Advanced Placement ("AP”) …position, or to a substantially equivalent position. The Agency shall also be required to pay for complainant's moving expenses…, including but not limited to, the cost of movers, temporary storage, and transportation. Complaint is further entitled to an award of $16,125.00 in past pecuniary, compensatory damages for these co-pays and an award of $200,000.00 in non-pecuniary, compensatory damages. 

CASE C: The Administrative Judge issued the following relief: The Agency is ordered to: 1. Within 60 days of its Final Agency Decision, the Agency shall pay Complainant non-pecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $187,500; 2. Within 60 days of its Final Agency decision, the Agency shall pay Complainant’s costs in the amount of $5,408; 3. Within 60 days of its Final Agency Decision, the Agency shall provide a minimum of 2 hours of live training to be provided to managerial/supervisory members at the VAMC Center in Tuscaloosa addressing reprisal and sex-based discrimination; 4. The Agency shall take appropriate preventive steps to ensure that Complainant is not retaliated against based on this EEO complaint, and that no employee is subjected to retaliation and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken immediately after Agency management is notified of any such retaliation allegation; and, 5. Within 60 days of its Final Agency Decision, for the benefit of its employees, the Agency shall post copies of the Notice to Employees attached to this order, after being signed by the Agency’s duly authorized representative, in conspicuous places for sixty (60) consecutive days, in its Tuscaloosa VAMC facilities, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted; the Agency shall take steps to ensure that said Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered. 

CASE D: After Chartmans obtained a substantial award at hearing against the defendant federal agency, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504, alleging noncompliance with the Agency’s Final Order concerning her equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) complaint, wherein an EEOC Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found the Agency in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.2 The Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 and found because Complainant was the prevailing party here, asthe agency adopted an AJ’s finding of discrimination and order of relief, Complainant was entitled to the reasonable costs arising from the litigation of her complaint. Complainant petitioned the agency for reasonable costs and provided it with “a detailed spreadsheet showing a breakdown of the costs expended, with supporting documents and a request was made for payment of the costs.” We find that Complainant has demonstrated that the agency failed to timely or fully comply with its September 22, 2020 Final Order adopting the AJ’s August 11, 2020 Decision. Thus, as the prevailing party in the underlying complaint, Complainant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs for efforts to obtain compliance with the agency’s Final Order. Complainant may petition the agency for any reasonable costs that she personally incurred in her effort to obtain compliance prior to retaining a legal representative. 

CASE E: The Administrative Judge found in the favor of Complainant and ruled as follows: Pursuant to the Administrative Judge’s (“AJ”) August 5, 2021 Final Decision on Liability (“Decision”) in favor of Complainant and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), as a prevailing party, 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. Complainant’s Petition is GRANTED. Here, 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 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 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 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 which 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 Complainant and multiple witnesses, including M.D., Chief of Mental Health Service and Chief of Staff support a finding the Agency is responsible for perpetrating a work environment which subjected Complainant to sexual harassment by AH. Therefore, the agency is liable for its failure to take effective remedial action in keeping AH from Complainant’s work area. 

CASE F: Following its May 10, 2022, final order, the Agency filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a). On appeal, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of an EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Agency also requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of the AJ’s decision. Specifically, the Agency contends that the AJ erred in granting summary judgment finding discrimination on some of Complainant’s claims and also contends that the AJ’s award of compensatory damages was excessive. The Commission ruled the Agency shall pay to Complainant back pay and all associated benefits plus applicable interest, in accordance with EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 11, Section III (Aug. 5, 201) and 5 C.F.R. §550,805, for the difference between the GS-07, step 1 and GS-09, step 1 rates from April 1, 2018 to one day prior to his promotion to GS-9, step 1. Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency’s efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by the Agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue a check to the Complainant for the undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The Complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The issue of Complainant’s increased tax burden from the Agency’s lump sum payment of back wages is remanded to the Agency. On remand, the Agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation, including providing Complainant an opportunity to submit evidence of his increased tax burden. For guidance on what evidence is necessary to prove pecuniary damages, the parties are directed to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at eeoc.gov.). The Agency shall complete the investigation and issue a final decision appealable to the EEOC determining the appropriate amount of damages.