EEOC Appeal 2025000695

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Nia G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000695
Agency No. 200H-0552-2021-104944
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
November 6, 2024 final decision concerning her entitlement to 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Nursing
Assistant at the Agency’s VA Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio. Complainant filed
a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination
and a hostile work environment on the bases of disability (physical) and reprisal
(prior EEO activity) when:
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.

2025000695	2
1. On or about July 23, 2021, Complainant reported two nurses who blocked
her access in a hallway to a former Nurse Manager and after reporting the
incident to her first line supervisor (Supervisor1), she was not apprised of
any action taken against the two nurses;
2. On July 26, 2021, the Community Living Center Outcomes Coordinator
yelled at Complainant when she requested time to consider a management-
directed detail;
3. On August 5, 2021, Supervisor1 told Complainant in an "unmannerly
tone" that he worked for the Agency, and not Workers' Compensation;
4. On August 11, 2021, Complainant was not provided with proper personal
protective equipment in the form of an N-95 mask when she was told to
work in the emergency room;
5. On August 12, 2021, Complainant was assigned to the emergency room as
a "Floater” despite her immunosuppressed condition;
6. On August 26, 2021, Complainant was detailed to the Veterans Experience
Office (VEO), even though she advised management that it would
exacerbate her medical condition; and
7. On September 3, 2021, Complainant was detailed to the Director's Office
but was later sent back to the VEO.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s request, the
Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the decision,
the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to
discrimination as alleged. 	Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission. 	In
Nia G. v Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 202300071 (June 4, 2024), the
Commission reversed the Agency’s decision regarding Complainant’s denial of
reasonable accommodation claim. Specifically, the Commission found that the
Agency failed to provide Complainant with reasonable accommodation from
September 3, 2021, to October 18, 2021. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s
decision regarding all other claims.

2025000695	3
The record shows that on November 11, 2020, Complainant, suffered a workplace
injury to her right wrist. Also, on December 29, 2020, Complainant was medically
prohibited 	from 	working 	with 	COVID-19 	patients 	due 	to 	a 	chronic
immunocompromised condition. From August 12, 2021, to August 25, 2021, the
Agency assigned Complainant various duties and detailed her to the VEO as
reasonable accommodation.2 On September 1, 2021, Complainant notified the
Agency that the writing and typing required by the VEO detail exacerbated her wrist
injury. On September 2, 2021, the Agency detailed Complainant from the VEO
detail to the Patient Business Service as reasonable accommodation.3 On September
3, 2021, the Agency detailed Complainant back to the VEO office. On October 18,
2021, the Agency detailed Complainant from the VEO office to another department
as reasonable accommodation.
Based on our partial reversal, the Agency conducted a supplemental investigation
regarding Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages. The Agency issued
its final decision on compensatory damages on November 6, 2024, awarding
Complainant $12,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. 	The Agency
awarded Complainant no pecuniary compensatory damages.
On appeal, Complainant seeks an unspecified amount for past pecuniary losses and
$1,500,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages. In support of these claims, Complainant
submitted a declaration, witness statements, medical records, and business and tax
records.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
2 Complainant’s duties in the VEO detail included answering phones, directing calls,
and data entry.
3 Complainant’s duties in the Patient Business Service detail included answering
phones, delivering messages, and other administrative duties as assigned within her
restrictions.

2025000695	4
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”).
ANALYSIS
Pecuniary Compensatory 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).
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. See Sheila O. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001250 (June 7, 2022). 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);
Casie S. v. Dep’t. of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2025000761 (Feb. 4, 2026).
Here, Complainant testified that after starting her business in 2021, she was unable
to work in the business due to her anxiety, panic attacks, and increased blood
pressure caused by the Agency’s discrimination. The record shows Complainant
formed her business on September 26, 2021 (i.e., after she was granted reasonable
accommodation), secured her vendor’s license on November 10, 2021, and closed
the business on February 3, 2023. In support of her claim, Complainant submitted
her 2021 and 2022 tax documents which do not show any earned profits in 2021 or
2022.

2025000695	5
The record is devoid of evidence showing Complainant suffered an actual loss or
expenses related to the dissolution of her outside business. We also agree with the
Agency that Complainant’s general assertions are too speculative to be compensable
as the record does not show that Complainant incurred a loss due to the failure to
accommodate her. Accordingly, we find that Complainant presented insufficient
evidence to establish that the discriminatory actions of the Agency were the
proximate cause of the dissolution of her outside business. Therefore, we find that
Complainant is not entitled to pecuniary damages.
NonPecuniary Compensatory Damages
Nonpecuniary compensatory damages cover 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 Compensatory and
Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
EEOC Notice No. 915.302 at 10 (July 14, 1992). There are no specific guidelines
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). The Commission notes that nonpecuniary compensatory
damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event rather
than punish the Agency for the discriminatory action. Furthermore, nonpecuniary
compensatory 	damages should 	not 	be motivated by 	passion 	or prejudice or
“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).
Complainant seeks $1,500,000.00 for the emotional and physical harm caused by
the Agency’s discrimination which included anxiety, panic attacks, raised blood
pressure levels.4 Complainant submitted witness statements from her sister, children,
and friends. All witnesses generally indicated that due to work related stress,
Complainant experienced anxiety and panic attacks, sleeplessness, bouts of crying,
and increased blood pressure.
4 Complainant also asserts she suffered weight loss due to all the stress she was under
at the time of the discrimination, but the medical documentation does not support
this contention.

2025000695	6
However, the witnesses fail to specify the time period Complainant experienced such
alleged emotional and physical distress. In addition, Complainant’s testimony does
not specifically focus on the claim for which she prevailed. Rather, Complainant’s
testimony and documentary evidence includes harm attributable to Complainant’s
failed claims of harassment and reprisal.5 Complainant provided testimony in July
2024 and asserts the harm is ongoing, but Complainant’s March 4, 2023, medical
records report that she was doing well, sleeping well, and was minimally anxious.
Given the limited evidence connecting Complainant’s harm to the discrimination at
issue herein, and the severity/duration of the harm, we find that the Agency's award
of $12,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages is supported by the evidence.
We find that this award is not “monstrously excessive” and is consistent with prior
Commission precedent. See Gloria D. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No.
2021002321 (Nov. 4, 2021) ($10,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages awarded where
complainant provided minimal testimony and evidence regarding the harm she
experienced as a result of the Agency's failure to accommodate her); Mica B. v. Gen.
Servs. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2019000424 (Aug. 12, 2020) ($10,000.00 in
nonpecuniary damages awarded where complainant experienced decline in physical
health but such decline not fully supported by medical evidence submitted); Cleo S.
v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019003273 (Aug. 18, 2020) ($10,000.00 in
nonpecuniary damages awarded where harm complainant experienced was partly
attributable to the Agency's failure to respond to his request for reasonable
accommodation); Dalton C. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No.
0120170077 (Mar. 27, 2018) ($15,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages awarded where
complainant submitted limited medical evidence regarding the exacerbation of his
preexisting conditions as a result of agency's failure to accommodate); Elvis G. v.
Dep't 	of Veterans 	Affs., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No. 	012019005802 	(July 	22, 	2021)
($10,000.00 	in 	nonpecuniary 	damages 	where 	complainant 	experienced
hypertension, loss of appetite, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and injury
to his professional standing, but some of Complainant's damages were caused by
other incidents which were not found to be discriminatory); Sierra P. v. Dep’t. of
Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2021004423 (Apr. 25, 2024) ($12,000.00
awarded in nonpecuniary damages for failure to accommodate complainant, but
complainant offered little testimony connecting the single incident found to be
5 Complainant also includes harm attributable to problems at work 1.5 years after
the events herein, and additional EEO complaints of discrimination not at issue
herein.

2025000695	7
discriminatory to the harm suffered and other unrelated stressors present); Ervin P.
v. Dep’t. of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2023005253 (June 12, 2024) ($10,000.00
awarded in nonpecuniary damages where Complainant suffered isolation from
family and friends, anxiety and stress but other harm possibly connected to other
nondiscriminatory stressors at the time).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.
The Agency’s decision regarding nonpecuniary compensatory damages remains in
place.
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.

2025000695	8
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.
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.

2025000695	9
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. 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