EEOC Appeal 2025004444

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carol K.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025004444
Hearing No. 570-2024-00440X
Agency No. 20DR-0020-2023-14969
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
September 16, 2025, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in 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 order.
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.

2025004444	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Human Resources Specialist at the Agency’s Human Resources Center in Detroit,
Michigan.
On May 3, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him based on disability (mental and physical) when:
1. 	on or about December 13, 2022, the Deputy Director demanded that
Complainant disclose his medical information in the presence of other
parties. The Deputy Director then contacted the Director, who yelled
and 	screamed 	at 	Complainant 	and 	openly 	released 	his 	medical
information; and
2. 	on or about December 13, 2022, the Director relocated Complainant
to 	an 	area/cubicle 	that 	was 	not 	in 	line 	with 	his 	reasonable
accommodation.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing.
The AJ held a hearing on June 11-12, 2025, and issued a decision on August 8,
2025. The AJ made findings of fact related to the events on or about December 13,
2022, when Complainant attended a virtual training from his Former Supervisor’s
vacant office. The Deputy Director and Director were unaware that the Former
Supervisor gave Complainant permission to work from her old office. Complainant
explained 	that 	he 	had 	approval 	to 	use 	the 	office 	pending 	his 	reasonable
accommodation. The Deputy Director asked what the reasonable accommodation
was, and Complainant refused to provide it. The Deputy Director returned with the
Director 	who 	loudly 	stated, 	“I 	know 	you 	have 	migraines,” 	and 	instructed
Complainant to leave the office and work in a cubicle under bright lights. AJ
Decision at 7. Other employees overheard and later commented to Complainant
that they did not know about his migraines. As such, the AJ determined that the
Director impermissibly disclosed Complainant’s medical information.

2025004444	3
The AJ also found that the Agency unlawfully denied Complainant a reasonable
accommodation in claim 2. Complainant requested a workspace where the lighting
could be controlled to remain darker than in the common areas and with enough
space to reduce the number of people in his workspace to avoid triggering his
disabilities. 	The 	Former 	Supervisor 	granted 	an 	interim 	accommodation 	for
Complainant to use her empty office, but Deputy Director and Director refused to
let Complainant use it and placed him in an area that was not consistent with his
accommodation. The AJ observed that there was no effort to prevent employees
from entering the workspace and turning the lights on. The AJ further found that
telework could have been offered as an alternative accommodation, but the Agency
presented no evidence that any other accommodation would have posed an undue
hardship. The AJ concluded that the Agency was responsible for the breakdown in
the interactive process and discriminated against Complainant based on disability.
The AJ ordered remedies, in relevant part, of restored sick or annual leave used by
Complainant from December 13, 2022, until he transferred in 2023, and any back
pay owed due to his transfer that resulted in a lower step increase. The AJ also
awarded $27,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant proved that the Agency subjected him to disability discrimination and
the ordered remedies.
The instant appeal followed regarding orders related to backpay calculations;
restored leave; an indebtedness action; and nonpecuniary compensatory damages.
The Agency did not respond to Complainant’s appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence
is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding
whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-
Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ’s conclusions of law are
subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

2025004444	4
ANALYSIS
Disability Discrimination
The Agency accepted the AJ’s findings that management officials improperly
disclosed 	Complainant’s 	medical 	information 	and 	failed 	to 	reasonably
accommodate him, which Complainant does not challenge. As such, we AFFIRM
the findings of disability discrimination.
Non-Pecuniary Compensatory Damages
In his appeal, Complainant asserts that the $27,000.00 award for nonpecuniary
compensatory damages was for emotional distress, but that evidence showed that
the Agency’s conduct exacerbated his chronic migraine condition and caused other
physical symptoms, such as insomnia and anxiety. Non-pecuniary losses 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 EEOC Notice No. 915.302, Enforcement Guidance on Compensatory
and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of
1991, at 10 (July 14, 1992). There is no precise formula for determining the
amount of damages for non-pecuniary 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). Non-pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy the harm
caused by the discriminatory event rather than to punish an 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).
In this case, the AJ specifically considered that the Agency’s actions exacerbated
Complainant’s disability and caused other symptoms, such as anxiety and an
inability to sleep. AJ Decision at 13. The AJ relied upon similar Commission
decisions to determine an award that was not monstrously excessive. For example,
the complainant in Eleni M. v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal Number
2022003624 (November 9, 2023) was awarded $25,000.00 for both physical and
emotional harms including depression, fatigue, anxiety, and flare-ups of her

2025004444	5
underlying 	disability. 	Complainant 	does 	not 	dispute 	the 	amount 	of 	the
nonpecuniary damages and simply asks that the Commission “clarify that a portion
of the $27,000.00 award is attributable to physical sickness.” Complainant Appeal
Brief at 2. We find no reason to disturb the AJ’s well-reasoned decision on
nonpecuniary compensatory damages for Complainant’s physical and emotional
harms. 	As 	such, 	we 	AFFIRM 	the 	award 	of 	$27,000.00 	in 	nonpecuniary
compensatory damages.
Additional Remedies
On appeal, Complainant also claims that the Agency failed to implement the
ordered remedies, including restoring leave or calculating proper back pay. The
Commission’s regulations provide that a final action that has not been the subject
of 	an 	appeal 	or 	civil 	action 	shall 	be 	binding 	on 	the 	agency. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.504(a). If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a decision, he or she shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the
alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. Id. The agency shall resolve the matter
and respond to the complainant, in writing. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b). If the agency
has not responded to the complainant in writing, or if the complainant is not
satisfied with the agency’s attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant may
appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the agency has
complied with the terms of the decision. Id. The complainant may file such an
appeal 35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations of
noncompliance but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her receipt of an
agency’s determination. Id.
There is no evidence that Complainant contacted the EEO Director of the alleged
noncompliance of the orders in its final order in writing. The Agency did not
respond to Complainant’s allegations, and there is insufficient evidence from the
Agency to evaluate whether it complied with the orders. For example, there are no
documents or explanations of the back pay calculations. As such, we decline to
consider these allegations because there is no indication that Complainant made the
necessary filing with the EEO Director.2 See Sana I. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC
Appeal No. 2022004995 (May 6, 2026).
2 If the Agency has still not complied with these orders, Complainant should follow
the 	Commission’s 	regulations 	and 	contact 	the 	EEO 	Director 	in 	writing.

2025004444	6
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s findings of disability
discrimination and award of $27,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.
However, 	we 	decline 	to 	consider 	the 	unexhausted 	allegations 	regarding
noncompliance of the remedies.
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
Complainant also appears to raise new allegations, such as a failure to implement
his reasonable accommodation until April 28, 2025. If Complainant wishes to
pursue new claims, he is advised to contact an EEO Counselor to initiate the
administrative process.

2025004444	7
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.

2025004444	8
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 23, 2026
Date