EEOC Appeal 2025000960

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Ross R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Bill Renick,
Chair,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000960
Agency No. TVA-2023-0002
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
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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Senior
Nuclear Security Officer at the Agency’s Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy Daisy,
Tennessee. On December 7, 2022, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against him 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.

2 	2025000960
1. The Agency denied his request for reasonable accommodation;
2. The Agency removed his S-11 clearance, placing him in non-work pay
status; and
3. He was not selected for numerous jobs, including six Hydro Technician II
positions at various TVA sites, a Watershed Representative position, a
Laborer position, a Nuclear Security Coordinator position, and a Nuclear
Supervisor, Security Shift position.
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. 	On 	March 	15, 	2024, 	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 was
discriminated against based on his disability when he was denied reasonable
accommodation in his role as a Senior Nuclear Security Officer.
The Agency awarded remedies included requiring the Agency to conduct a
supplemental 	investigation 	into 	Complainant’s 	entitlement 	to 	compensatory
damages. A supplemental investigation on compensatory damages was conducted,
and the Agency issued its final decision concluding that Complainant was entitled
to $50,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages.2
On appeal, Complainant argues that the $50,000.00 award is grossly inadequate and
asserts that he is entitled to $300,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without 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)
2 The Agency also concluded that Complainant was not entitled to pecuniary
damages. Complainant does not raise any argument on appeal with respect to
pecuniary damages and we find no basis to modify the Agency’s decision on this
issue.

3 	2025000960
(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”).
ANALYSIS
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.
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 agen5cy's
illegal actions and her injury).
Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite
for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See Complainant v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr. 18, 1996) (citing Complainant v.
Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993)).

4 	2025000960
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 non-pecuniary
losses that are incurred as a result of discriminatory conduct. Id. 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 asserts that he experienced a decrease in his credit score, became
introverted when he used to be extroverted, has no will to answer the phone and only
sends text messages, has ongoing depression,3 experienced weight gain,4 lost his
house and was forced to live on his retirement savings, no longer trusts employees
in the workplace, lost his self-esteem, has no energy to do simple everyday things,
developed additional skin problems, experienced loss of sleep, cries a lot, had to file
for unemployment and EBT,5 and a loss of reputation. Complainant also submitted
statements from family members, church members, and coworkers.6
We find the Agency’s award of $50,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages
adequately compensates Complainant for the harm he suffered as a result of the
denial 	of 	accommodation 	and 	resulting 	removal 	action. 	This 	amount 	is 	not
“monstrously excessive” standing alone and is consistent with prior Commission
precedent. See Carol P. v. Small Bus. Admin, EEOC Appeal No. 2021004687 (Mar.
9, 2022) ($50,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages awarded when complainant suffered
loss of job, mood swings, emotional distress, marital discord, and loss of self-esteem
3 Complainant has not been diagnosed with depression or anxiety and has not
received treatment from a medical provider.
4 Complainant does not state how much weight he gained or the timeframe of such
weight gain.
5 Electronic 	Benefits 	Transfer 	(EBT) 	is 	an 	electronic 	system 	that 	allows 	a
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participant to pay for food
using SNAP benefits.
6 However, these additional statements do not add much support to Complainant’s
assertions, as the statements provide mainly vague generalizations. Some of the
statements 	even 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	other 	unrelated 	stressors 	added 	to
Complainant’s distress.

5 	2025000960
after agency failed to process reasonable accommodation request resulting in
complainant's separation); Tyson A. v. Dep’t. of Agric., EEOC Appeal No.
2022003346 (Jan. 3, 2024) (award of $50,000.00 for Complainant who was denied
reasonable 	accommodation 	and 	forced 	out 	of 	position 	resulting 	in 	anxiety,
depression, a decline in overall health, marital stress, difficulty focusing, insomnia,
strained relationships with family members and feelings of failure since he has been
unable to provide for his family for the first time in his life); Stanton S. v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019004097 (Apr. 15, 2021) (award of $30,000.00 in
nonpecuniary damages to remedy hair and weight loss, increased alcohol intake,
anxiety due to financial strain, depression, mental anguish, trouble sleeping,
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of interest in outside activities, and conflict with
wife that resulted in a September 2014 denial of accommodation and October 2014
removal); Cecille W. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2021001542 (Sept. 28,
2022) (awarded $30,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages where the
agency failed to reasonably accommodate complainant; complainant reported
experiencing stress, depression, fear, and loss of income, realized she was going to
lose her house and had to move into parents' basement, and complainant's friend and
children described Complainant having negatively altered spirit); Utt v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720070001 (Mar. 26, 2009) ($25,000.00 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages awarded to Complainant for emotional distress, low self-
esteem, financial stress, difficulty sleeping, weight gain, and loss of enjoyment in
extracurricular 	activities 	he 	experienced 	as 	a 	direct 	result 	of 	the 	Agency's
discriminatory termination).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on
appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s
decision. The Agency’s decision 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

6 	2025000960
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).

7 	2025000960
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 signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date