EEOC Appeal 2025001344

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20507
Cecile S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025001344
Hearing No. 480-2021-00025X
Agency No. 200P-0600-2020101885
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
December 16, 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 on
compensatory damages.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Surgical Case Manager (Nurse II), in the Ophthalmology Service at the Agency’s
VA Medical Center in Long Beach, California.
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.

2025001344	2
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of
disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity as evidenced by multiple
incidents, including inter alia, being denied reasonable accommodation; receiving a
satisfactory performance appraisal, being denied annual leave; and being issued
various instructions and critiques.
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 (AJ). 	Complainant requested a hearing.
The AJ issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding that
Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal. The Agency issued a
final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. In Cecile S. v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affs., EEOC Appeal 2023001455 (May 1, 2024), the Commission reversed the
Agency’s final order in part and found that the Agency subjected Complainant to
retaliatory harassment when Complainant’s supervisor (Supervisor) emailed three
doctors, noting that Complainant had filed an EEO complaint against Supervisor
and asking that they respond with a witness statement of any “negative behaviors”
that they experienced with Complainant. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s
final order finding no discrimination regarding her other claims.
To remedy the violation, the Commission ordered the Agency to, among other
things, conduct a supplemental investigation into Complainant’s entitlement to
compensatory damages. 	Based on the statements and medical documentation
submitted by Complainant, the Agency issued a decision granting Complainant
$55,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. The Agency, however, found
that there was insufficient evidence to support Complainant’s claims for pecuniary
compensatory damages. The instant appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency’s award is inadequate, and she
is entitled to additional damages. Complainant seeks to recover pecuniary damages
in 	an 	additional 	amount 	of 	$107,967.00. 	Complainant 	states 	this 	amount 	is
comprised of alleged losses for leave, medical co-pays, past wages, Office of
Workers’ Compensation (OWCP) benefits, health benefits, backpay for medical
expenses, travel and relocation expenses, a pay cut, and interest on all back pay.

2025001344	3
ANALYSIS
When discrimination is found, an agency must provide a remedy that constitutes
full, make-whole relief to restore a complainant as nearly as possible to the
position he or she 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, 418-419 (1975). The award is intended to be remedial, and
not punitive.
Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses that are incurred because of the
employer's 	unlawful 	action, 	including 	moving 	expenses, 	medical 	expenses,
psychiatric expenses, physical therapy expenses, and other quantifiable out-of-
pocket 	expenses. 	See 	Enforcement 	Guidance: 	Compensatory 	and 	Punitive
Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC No. 915.002
(July 14, 1992) at 14. For claims seeking pecuniary damages, objective evidence
should include documentation of out-of-pocket expenses for all actual costs and an
explanation of the expense, e.g., medical billings, other costs associated with the
injury caused by the agency's actions, and an explanation for the expenditure. Id. at
9.
As an initial matter, we note that 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 addition, the Commission note the previous appellate decision did not award
such relief. 	Therefore, Complainant is not entitled to awards of leave restoration,
backpay, or interest on back pay.
Next, Complainant sought reimbursement for travel and relocation expenses.
Complainant provided receipts from December 2022 to January 2023, indicating
that she moved from California to Michigan. 	Complainant stated that she moved
to Michigan due to the extensive emotional distress and trauma she experienced at
the Long 	Beach 	VA. 	The 	Commission’s 	previous 	decision 	found 	that 	the
retaliatory conduct occurred in July 2020, and Complainant was immediately
separated from Supervisor. Supervisor also left the Agency around August 2021.

2025001344	4
Complainant has provided insufficient evidence demonstrating that her move,
which occurred in January 2023, was directly related to the retaliatory events that
occurred in July 2020. Accordingly, Complainant is not entitled to reimbursement
for moving and relocation expenses.
Additionally, Complainant sought pecuniary expenses for insurance copays for her
medical visits and prescriptions. 	Complainant submitted a letter from her doctor
stating that she has been a patient at the clinic since May 2023, and her main
medical condition is hypertension. 	Complainant submitted billing statement and
medication copays dated May 1, 2023 and June 18, 2023. Complainant, however,
again has presented no evidence linking these expenses incurred as early as May
2023, to the retaliatory conduct she experienced in July 2020. 	As a result, the
Commission finds that Complainant is not entitled to pecuniary compensatory
damages.
Nonpecuniary Damages
Nonpecuniary 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 nonpecuniary losses except that the award
should reflect the nature and severity of the ham 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, 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).

2025001344	5
Evidence 	from 	a 	health 	care 	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 a
complainant concerning 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 discriminatory conduct. Id.
Statements from others including family members, friends, health care 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
his 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).
Complainant offered her own statement and statements from her husband, co-
worker, and her medical provider. She claims to have suffered permanent back and
sciatica pain, depression, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, low libido, difficulty
sleeping, low motivation and social distancing from friends and family. She also
stated 	that 	she 	was 	diagnosed 	with 	high 	blood 	pressure 	in 	May 	1, 	2023.
Complainant provided a letter from her primary care physician dated June 14, 2024
that stated that she “is under treatment with anti-hypertensive medication.

2025001344	6
As noted above, Complainant offered no evidence to tie her hypertension to the
conduct found to be retaliatory.
In providing an award of $55,000.00, the Agency relied on recent appeals,
including Neal O. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2023000571 (Mar. 15,
2023) (Complainant awarded $60,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages); Ross R. v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2023000596 (June 14, 2023) ($50,000.00
awarded for reprisal based harassment, where complainant had trouble sleeping,
stopped socializing and was diagnosed with anxiety). We find that the amount was
justified and appropriate to remedy Complainant for the harm suffered because of
the proven reprisal. We determine that this award is consistent with the amounts
awarded with the amounts awarded in similar cases. This award takes into account
the nature of the Agency’s actions, the degree of harm Complainant experienced,
and the amount of the supporting evidence that Complainant offered. See Irvin M.
v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020005333 (June 8, 2022)
(Commission awarded complainant $50,000.00 in nonpecuniary, compensatory
damages 	where 	complainant 	experienced 	stress, 	anxiety, 	trouble 	sleeping,
gastrointestinal issues, paranoia, and strain on relationships as a result of a
discriminatory non-selection); Elliot J. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
2019000550 (Jan. 28, 2020) (Complainant awarded $50,000.00 following non-
selection which caused anxiety, stress, panic attacks, weight gain, and hypertension
that caused Complainant to seek counseling and to take medications).
CONCLUSION
Based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those
not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision on
compensatory damages, which 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

2025001344	7
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. 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).

2025001344	8
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. 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 signat 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date