EEOC Appeal 2025000648

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Domingo M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000648
Hearing No. 550-2023-00299X
Agency No. 200P-663-2022-147383
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
October 17, 2024 final decision regarding compensatory damages following a
finding 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	Section 	501 	of 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act 	of 	1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. 	For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
1 	This 	case 	has 	been 	randomly 	assigned 	a 	pseudonym 	which 	will 	replace
Complainant’s 	name 	when 	the 	decision 	is 	published 	to 	non-parties 	and 	the
Commission’s website.

2025000648	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Program Analyst, GS-09, at the Agency’s Medical Center in Seattle, Washington.
On September 21, 2022, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging
discrimination based on disability (Coronary Artery Disease, Peripheral Artery
Disease, Aortic Aneurysm, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma,
Emphysema, Bronchitis, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) when:
1. From 	May 	25, 	2022 	through 	July 	22, 	2022, 	management 	denied
Complainant a reasonable accommodation; and
2. From May 26, 2022 through July 22, 2022, Complainant was charged
Absent without Leave (AWOL).
At the conclusion of its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request an
Agency decision or a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Complainant
initially requested a hearing, but he later withdrew that request. 	On June 6, 2024,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
The Agency decision found that the Agency failed to provide Complainant with an
effective interim reasonable accommodation between approximately May 25, 2022
and July 25, 2022, and that the Agency failed to act in good faith, thus entitling
Complainant to compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act. The Agency
also found that the Agency unlawfully discriminated against Complainant based on
his disability when it charged him with AWOL on 33 occasions during the relevant
period. 	The Agency ordered, in part, that the Agency conduct a supplemental
investigation regarding the claim for compensatory damages. Complainant did not
appeal the Agency’s decision regarding the merits.
The 	Agency 	conducted 	a 	supplemental 	investigation 	into 	the 	issue 	of
Complainant’s 	entitlement 	to 	compensatory 	damages. 	The 	supplemental
investigation 	contains 	Complainant’s 	signed 	statement 	and 	statements 	from
Complainant’s Daughter, Supervisor2, and Colleague.
2 Complainant’s supervisor as of 2024.

2025000648	3
In 	his 	statement 	to 	the 	Agency, 	Complainant 	requested 	nonpecuniary
compensatory 	damages 	of 	$150,000.00. 	Complainant 	described 	feeling
demoralized, heartbroken, scared, anxious, depressed, fatigued, guilty and angry.
Complainant 	reported 	having 	sleep 	issues 	and 	difficulty 	concentrating.
Complainant stated that his marriage failed. 	Complainant reported experiencing
cardiac pain and weight gain. 	Complainant also requested pecuniary damages of
up to $40,000.00. 	Complainant reported that he applied for and received multiple
loans and used credit cards to cover expenses such as food, housing, utilities, and
college tuition for a family member. Complainant submitted screenshots of credit
card payments and random information associated with multiple loans. 	The loan
documentation 	in 	one 	to 	two 	instances 	identifies 	an 	interest 	rate, 	but 	the
documentation does not establish the totality of the circumstances related to the
loans. Complainant’s statement connects the foregoing damages to multiple events
including the discriminatory denial of an interim reasonable accommodation and
the charged AWOL, but Complainant also connected the symptoms to his former
supervisor’s denial of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that
began in February 2022, supervisor’s “possession of [Complainant’s] timecard”,
Complainant 	not 	receiving 	a 	paycheck 	until 	November 	2022, 	and 	what
Complainant described as a forced transfer to a GS-07 position from his GS-09
Program 	Analyst 	position. 	Complainant 	identified 	the 	timeframe 	for 	these
financial difficulties as between February 2022 and August 4, 2024. 	The record
shows that what Complainant described as a forced transfer was a subsequent
development 	where 	Complainant 	accepted 	a 	reassignment 	as 	a 	reasonable
accommodation in the spring of 2023.
Daughter stated that Complainant experienced increased anxiety and depression,
difficulty concentrating, and decreased functioning in his daily life. 	Daughter
reported that Complainant had worsened family relationships including becoming
legally separated from his wife and reduced involvement in the lives of his three
children. 	Daughter stated that she barely recognizes the man Complainant has
become. 	Daughter described Complainant has having difficulty paying personal
debts. Daughter’s statement does reference the discriminatory events, but she also
reported that the foregoing changes were related to Complainant’s cardiac surgery
in December 2023, when Complainant’s pay was withheld, and denied FMLA
leave requests.
Supervisor stated that Complainant experienced lowered self-esteem and worsened
relationships with friends and family.

2025000648	4
Supervisor stated that Complainant is unable to manage his own mental health and
that Complainant lacks hope and trust. Supervisor referenced the “forced transfer”
described herein and the personal loans Complainant received to cover expenses.
Colleague 	stated 	that 	she 	acted 	as 	Complainant’s 	representative 	during 	an
arbitration. 	Colleague stated that multiple events including the denied reasonable
accommodation 	but 	also 	payment 	errors 	on 	subsequent 	paychecks 	caused
Complainant and Complainant’s family harm and great distress.
After 	the 	supplemental 	investigation, 	the 	Agency 	issued 	a 	final 	decision
concerning compensatory damages on October 17, 2024. 	The Agency denied
Complainant any past pecuniary damages. 	The Agency noted that it had awarded
backpay and that any award for the loan amount in addition to the foregoing award
of backpay would constitute double compensation for the same loss. 	The Agency
noted that Complainant would still be entitled to the amount of fees charged or
interest incurred related to the loans but found that Complainant failed to provide
sufficient information to determine the foregoing amounts. 	The Agency denied
Complainant future pecuniary damages related to the alleged “forced transfer”
because the claim was not accepted, investigated or adjudicated. 	The Agency
found that Complainant established emotional and physical harm connected with
the discriminatory events and awarded Complainant $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages.
Complainant appeals the Agency’s denial of pecuniary damages and the Agency’s
award of $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages. 	Complainant concedes that the
Agency is liable for only the fees, interest, and penalties related to Complainant’s
borrowing. Complainant supporting documentation submitted on appeal, however,
failed to establish the foregoing amounts. 	Complainant does not request future
pecuniary damages related to the alleged “forced transfer”. Complainant contends
that 	the 	Agency’s 	award 	of 	$20,000.00 	for 	nonpecuniary 	damages 	grossly
underestimates 	the 	severity 	and 	duration 	of 	Complainant’s 	injuries 	and
Complainant requests an award of $150,000.00.

2025000648	5
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 	See Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5,
2015) 	(explaining 	that 	the 	de 	novo 	standard 	of 	review 	“requires 	that 	the
Commission 	examine 	the 	record 	without 	regard 	to 	the 	factual 	and 	legal
determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
When discrimination is found, an agency must provide the complainant with a
remedy that constitutes full, make-whole relief to restore him as nearly as possible
to the position he would have occupied absent the discrimination. See, e.g., Franks
v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Adesanya v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01933395 (July 21, 1994). 	Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil
Rights 	Act 	of 	1991, 	a 	complainant 	who 	establishes 	unlawful 	intentional
discrimination 	under 	Title 	VII 	and 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act 	may 	receive
compensatory damages for past and future pecuniary losses (i.e., out-of-pocket
expenses) and nonpecuniary losses (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish) as
part of make-whole relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). 	Compensatory damages do
not include back pay, interest on back pay, or any other type of equitable relief. 42
U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(2). In West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (1999), the Supreme Court
held that Congress afforded the Commission the authority to award compensatory
damages in the administrative process.
Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses incurred because of the agency’s
unlawful 	action, 	including 	job-hunting 	expenses, 	moving 	expenses, 	medical
expenses, psychiatric expenses, physical therapy expenses, and other quantifiable
out-of-pocket expenses. 	Past pecuniary losses are losses incurred prior to the
resolution of a complaint through a finding of discrimination, or a voluntary
settlement. EEO MD-110, at Chap. 11, VII.B.2 (internal citations omitted). Future
pecuniary damages are losses likely to occur after the resolution of the complaint.

2025000648	6
In a claim for pecuniary compensatory damages, a complainant must demonstrate,
through appropriate evidence and documentation, the harm suffered because of the
agency’s discriminatory action. 	Objective evidence in support of a claim for
pecuniary damages includes documentation showing actual out-of-pocket expenses
with an explanation of the expenditure. 	The agency is only responsible for those
damages that are clearly shown to be caused by the Agency’s discriminatory
conduct. 	To recover damages, a complainant must prove that the employer’s
discriminatory actions were the cause of the pecuniary loss. Id. (citations omitted).
Complainant renews his request for interest, fees, and penalties related to the loans
he received during the relevant period. We find that Complainant failed to submit
documentation that could establish the foregoing costs. 	We acknowledge that a
few 	of 	the 	screenshots 	seem 	to 	identify 	an 	interest 	rate, 	however, 	the
documentation fails to provide specific context to support any award related to this
rate. For instance, there is no explanation if the interest rate was a permanent rate
or part of a variable rate loan, nor is there any explanation of what past interest
payments Complainant has made. As such, we deny Complainant request for past
pecuniary 	damages. 	As 	Complainant 	did 	not 	renew 	his 	request 	for 	future
pecuniary losses, we do not address them in this decision.
Nonpecuniary Damages
Nonpecuniary compensatory damages are losses that are not subject to precise
quantification, i.e., emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss
of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character and
reputation, 	injury 	to 	credit 	standing, 	and 	loss 	of 	health. 	See 	Enforcement
Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available under § 102 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 10 (July 14, 1992). There is no
precise formula for determining the amount of damages for nonpecuniary losses
except that the award should reflect the nature and severity of the harm, and the
duration or expected duration of the harm. 	See Loving v. Dep’t of the Treasury,
EEOC Appeal No. 01955789 (Aug. 29, 1997). 	Nonpecuniary compensatory
damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event
rather than to punish the Agency for the discriminatory action. 	Furthermore,
compensatory damages should not be motivated by passion or prejudice or be
“monstrously excessive” standing alone but should be consistent with the amounts
awarded in similar cases. See Ward-Jenkins v. Dep’t of the Interior, EEOC Appeal
No. 01961483 (Mar. 4, 1999).

2025000648	7
Evidence from a healthcare provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite
for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See Lawrence v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr. 18, 1996) (citing Carle v. Dep’t of
the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993)). 	Objective evidence of
compensatory damages can include statements from Complainant concerning her
or 	his 	emotional 	pain 	or 	suffering, 	inconvenience, 	mental 	anguish, 	loss 	of
enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character or reputation,
injury to credit standing, loss of health, and any other nonpecuniary losses that are
incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct. Id.
Statements from others including family members, friends, healthcare providers,
and other counselors (including clergy) could address the outward manifestations
or physical consequences of emotional distress, including sleeplessness, anxiety,
stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self-
esteem, excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown. 	Id. 	Complainant’s own
testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case, can suffice to sustain
her burden in this regard. 	Id. 	The more inherently degrading or humiliating the
defendant’s action is, the more reasonable it is to infer that a person would suffer
humiliation or distress from that action. 	Id. 	The absence of supporting evidence,
however, may affect the amount of damages appropriate in specific cases. Id.
Complainant has the burden of proving the existence, nature, and severity of the
alleged emotional harm. 	Man H. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
0120161218 (May 2, 2017). Complainant must also establish a causal relationship
between the alleged harm and the discrimination. 	Id. 	Absent such proof of harm
and causation, a complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages, even if
there were a finding of unlawful discrimination. 	Id.; Wilda M. v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120141087 (Jan. 12, 2017) (awards for emotional harm
are warranted 	only if complainant 	establishes 	a sufficient causal 	connection
between the agency’s illegal actions and her injury).
After a review of the evidence, we find that the Agency’s award of $20,000.00 for
nonpecuniary compensatory damages is appropriate. 	The award reflects the
symptoms Complainant and the supporting statements describe Complainant as
experiencing including depression, anxiety, fatigue, guilt, and anger. 	The award
also reflects Complainant’s cardiac pain, weight gain and worsened personal
relationships.

2025000648	8
No greater award is appropriate given the fact that the supporting statements
regularly referenced events that were not found to be discriminatory, such as
denied 	FMLA 	leave 	and 	incorrect 	amounts 	on 	subsequent 	paychecks, 	as
contributing factors to Complainant’s symptoms.
The Agency awarded Complainant $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory
damages. 	After a thorough review of the record, and given the severity, nature,
and duration of the distress experienced by Complainant as a direct result of the
discrimination, we find that an award of $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory
damages to be appropriate. 	We find that this amount is not motivated by passion
or prejudice, is not “monstrously excessive” standing alone, and is consistent with
prior Commission precedent. 	See Orlando O. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 2022002384 (July 5, 2023) (Commission awarded $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages where complainant and complainant’s wife described loss
of self-esteem, loss of self-worth, strained familial relationships, and an increase in
anxiety, helplessness, and depression due to the agency unnecessarily delaying its
response 	to 	Complainant’s 	request 	for 	reasonable 	accommodation 	for 	four
months); Lydia F. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2020001007
(Sep. 16, 2021) (Commission awarded $20,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory
damages where complainant experienced worsening of mental health conditions
due to the agency’s denial of a reasonable accommodation and a finding of
constructive discharge).3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision on compensatory damages.
The Agency’s decision remains in place.
3 We caution Complainant’s attorney regarding the submitted appellate brief.
Attorney’s submission in the instant appeal cited to five cases as Commission
precedent supporting a greater award; however, three of the cases either do not
exist or the corresponding appeal number does not involve the parties represented
nor the premise for which it was cited.

2025000648	9
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that tend to establish that:
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the
request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for
reconsideration. 	A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement 	in 	opposition. 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405; 	Equal 	Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, Complainant can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the
EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.

2025000648	10
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request 	for 	reconsideration 	as 	untimely, 	unless 	extenuating 	circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be
submitted together with the request for reconsideration. 	The Commission will
consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. 	If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the
complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head,
identifying that person by their full name and official title. 	Failure to do so may
result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the
national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you
work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so,
you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without
paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent
you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you.
You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an
attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests.

2025000648	11
Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the
paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time
limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date