DAMWYK v. KENDALL, III (AIR FORCE), Case No. 2:22-cv-04424-HDV-SK
Feb 05, 2025
OUTCOME: Successful
In November 2024, FELSC prevailed before a jury in the United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of a disabled individual who was denied reasonable accommodation. FELSC se...cured significant damages for our client, including substantial backpay, $250,000 in compensatory damages, and lost retirement benefits. The Damwyk verdict was noticed as one of California’s top labor and employment verdicts in 2024. https://topverdict.com/lists/2024/california/top-50-labor-employment-verdicts
Employment and labor
GUESS v. EPA
Mar 09, 2011
OUTCOME: Successful
$100,000 Awarded in a Reprisal Discrimination Case. On March 9, 2011, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Lisa D. Sirkin, from the EEOC’s New York District Office, held ...that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retaliated against a FELSC client under Title VII when it transferred her from her Project Officer position into a Senior Quality Assurance position, where she was required to do “data entry.” The transfer was a lateral transfer with no change in pay or grade. In finding discrimination, Judge Sirkin determined that the Agency’s evaluations did not show that the transfer was necessitated by the employee’s performance. After the EEOC issued its finding of discrimination, the EPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Agency argued that it was improper for the EEOC Judge to find discrimination on the transfer issue because the transfer issue was not an accepted issue in the case. The Agency argued that the transfer issue was not investigated and, hence, was not properly before the court. Judge Sirkin denied the Agency’s motion and re-affirmed her finding of discrimination. She stated that the Agency waived objection to inclusion of the transfer issue when it addressed the details of the transfer during discovery, in prehearing submissions, and at the hearing. Judge Sirkin further noted that she had the authority to add an issue at the hearing. She stated that:
An Administrative Judge has the authority, and may properly exercise discretion, to add another basis of discrimination when there is evidence of that basis from testimony at the hearing and in the record. If the basis is like and related to an accepted allegation, it may be added even at the hearing. Johnson v. U.S. Department of the Treasury; Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 07A20017 (2003), citing Sanchez v. Standard Brands Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) and Dragos v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940563 (January 19, 1995).
After briefs were submitted on the issue of damages, Judge Sirkin awarded our client $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages for the emotional distress and physical ailments she suffered as a result of the discriminatory transfer. The client was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
BARTRON v. DOD
Mar 03, 2011
OUTCOME: Successful
$92,500, Back pay, and Reinstatement Awarded to a FELSC Client for Denial of Reasonable Accommodation and Reprisal.
On March 3, 2011, the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations held that the Departmen...t of Defense (DOD) discriminated against a FELSC client, Patricia Bartron, when it denied her request for reasonable accommodation. When Ms. Bartron came to FELSC, the Agency had already denied her request for accommodation and she had submitted an application for disability retirement. FELSC sent the Agency a letter requesting that it explore reassignment options so that she would not have to resign. The Agency ignored our letter and the complainant resigned. An EEOC hearing was held in Washington, DC. At the conclusion of the hearing, EEOC Administrative Judge Abigail Coleman, from the EEOC Washington Field Office, found that the DOD discriminated against Ms. Bartron under the Rehabilitation Act because of her disability, when it failed to explore reassignment options. The Judge noted that the agency’s failure to accommodate complainant resulted in her inability to work and in the loss of income. The client testified that due to the loss of her job, her house was foreclosed and she was separated from her grandchildren and children, who lived with her. Judge Coleman awarded our client $92,500 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, along with back pay, reinstatement, and other relief. Bartron v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. Appeal No. 0720100054 (March 3, 2011). Ms. Bartron was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
DAVIS v. FAA
Jan 13, 2011
OUTCOME: Successful
Department of Transportation Ordered to Reverse a Demotion.
On January 13, 2011, Administrative Judge Pamela B. Jackson, from the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) Atlanta Regional Office, ord...ered the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to reverse its decision to demote a FELSC client. The client appealed the FAA’s decision to demote him from the position of Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist, FV-21-1-J, to the position of Airway Transportation Systems Specialist, FV-21-1-I, effective September 12, 2010. The agency demoted him after charging him with 1) two counts of failure to follow instructions; 2) one count of misrepresentation, and 3) three counts of conduct unbecoming a manager. The MSPB hearing began in Jackson, Mississippi and concluded in Washington, DC. After the hearing, Judge Jackson held that the agency failed to prove any of its charges. Judge Jackson ordered the agency to rescind the appellant’s demotion and retroactively restore him to the position of Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist, FV-2101-J. The client was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
FIVECOAT V. US AIR FORCE
Dec 23, 2010
OUTCOME: Successful
$100,000 Awarded to a FELSC Client for Sex Harassment and Reprisal Discrimination.
On December 23, 2010, EEOC Administrative Judge Anita Foye Richardson, from the EEOC’s Raleigh District Office, dete...rmined that the United States Air Force subjected a FELSC client to a hostile work environment based on her sex and prior EEO activity. Judge Foye Richardson held that our client was subjected to a hostile work environment by her first-line supervisor, an Air Force Flight Chief, when he spoke to her in curt and rude tones; called her and other women derogatory names; micromanaged her; criticized her publicly and privately; undermined her in front of her subordinates; blamed her for problems that he was responsible for; undermined her authority; excessively scrutinized her; publicly criticized her; and forced her to witness harassment of her female coworkers. After the finding of discrimination, the Administrative Judge scheduled a damages hearing. At the conclusion of the damages hearing, Administrative Judge Richardson found that the complainant was entitled to an award of $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Judge noted that statements from complainant, her coworkers and her husband showed that complainant experienced substantial emotional and physical problems, including depression and loss of enjoyment of life, because of the discrimination. The Judge found that the award was consistent with awards in similar cases, and was not “monstrously excessive.” The Client was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
JACKSON v. US AIR FORCE
Dec 23, 2010
OUTCOME: Successful
$125,000 Awarded to a FELSC Client for Sex Harassment and Reprisal.
On December 23, 2010, after a lengthy bifurcated hearing, EEOC Administrative Judge Anita Foye Richardson, from the EEOC’s Raleig...h District Office, determined that the United States Air Force subjected our client to a hostile work environment based on her sex. Judge Richardson held that:
With the women in CERF, Flight Chief did the following. First, he spoke to them in curt and rude tones. Secondly, he called his subordinate employees some derogatory names such as fat slob and “Jeckyll and Hyde,” and he referenced other women as a “bitch” and “slut.” Also, he micromanaged the women more so than the men, and he repeatedly criticized the women publically and privately. More so, he criticized and undermined Complainant in front of others including her subordinates and management not within her management supervision. Next, by the nature of their positions in the funds office, he assigned the women his work while he was out of the office. And he blamed them when his work suspenses were missed or late. Further, he circumvented the chain of command and repeatedly undermined Complainant’s authority over her subordinates with regard to training opportunities, work assignments, and additional duties. Finally, he had a better rapport with the men. In general, such behavior makes an uncomfortable working environment. Specifically, Flight Chief subjected Complainant to increased work scrutiny that was unwarranted. The record does not reflect that Complainant’s work performance justified this heightened micromanagement style. Although email traffic between Complainant and Flight Chief and Complainant’s mid-year performance review indicate that Flight Chief had concerns about Complainant’s ability to meet suspenses, Flight Chief could not provide formal documentation of his overall concerns (insubordination, work performance, or supervisory inability). In fact, Flight Chief did not formally document his valid concerns until after Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor. Absent such evidence prior to July 9, 2007, Flight Chief’s increased scrutiny of Complainant’s work and disregard for the CERF chain of command appears unreasonable and likely motivated by another reason. From witnesses’ testimony, it appears that his motivation was Complainant’s sex. This increased scrutiny and public critique of Complainant’s work and supervisory ability served to publically humiliate Complainant in front of her subordinates and peers on a frequent basis.
After the damages hearing in December 2010, the Administrative Judge found that the client was entitled to an award of $125,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Judge noted that statements from complainant, her coworkers, and a friend showed that complainant experienced emotional and physical problems, including depression and loss of enjoyment of life, stress and anxiety.
Accordingly, in this case, an award of $125,000 in non-pecuniary damages is appropriate to compensate complainant for her two years of severe physical and emotional pain and suffering and marital strain during the sex based hostile work environment and the subsequent years of emotional pain and suffering. In that non-pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy a harm, it is not to punish the agency for its discriminatory actions. See Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 31112 (1986) (stating that compensatory damages determination must be based on the actual harm sustained and not the facts of the underlying case).
The Judge determined that the award was consistent with awards in similar cases, and was not “monstrously excessive.” The Client was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
CLIFFORD v. USPS
Jan 01, 2010
OUTCOME: Successful
$40,000 Awarded for Sex, Age, and Reprisal Discrimination.
Following a finding of sex, age, and reprisal discrimination, EEOC Administrative Judge David Treeter, of the Indianapolis District Office..., awarded our client, among other things, $40,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. On appeal, the Commission concurred with the AJ’s award. Complainant was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and high blood pressure related to the discrimination. Complainant was treated by a physician for these conditions and took medication. In addition, various witnesses testified regarding the change in Complainant’s personality following the discrimination, noting that she became emotionally distraught. Clifford v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720100010 (May 18, 2010). Ms. Clifford was represented by Rosemary Dettling.
Employment and labor
LAMPKINS V. USPS
Dec 08, 2009
OUTCOME: Successful
$25,000 Awarded for Disability and Reprisal Discrimination.
A FELSC client filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to disability discrimination when his employer, the United State...s Postal Service, disseminated private medical information during a pre-disciplinary meeting and subjected him to reprisal discrimination when the agency issued him a 14-day suspension. Following a hearing, EEOC Administrative Judge Katie Duderstadt, of the San Antonio District Office, found discrimination with regard to both matters. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Administrative Judge’s decision. According to the record, during the pre-disciplinary meeting, a union steward and a supervisor were given a copy of a report that contained detailed medical records, including documentation of complainant’s symptoms when he was admitted to the hospital, and the resulting diagnosis. The Commission noted that documentation concerning an individual’s diagnosis is without question medical information that must be treated as confidential under the EEOC Regulations. Thus, the agency’s release of complainant’s medical information was a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act. With regard to the suspension, the Commission noted that management was aware of complainant’s prior EEO activity and issued the suspension within a period of time such that a retaliatory motive can be inferred. In addition, while the agency asserted that complainant submitted altered medical documentation in support of a leave request, the Administrative Judge credited complainant’s testimony that he did not intend to defraud the agency when he submitted “sanitized” medical documentation. In addition, as complainant had no previous discipline, the 14-day suspension was not commensurate with the agency’s progressive discipline policy, and the agency had previously accepted similarly redacted medical documentation. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $25,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages for pain and suffering, as well as rescind the notice of suspension and restore any leave used as a result of the discrimination. Melvin D. Lampkins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080017 (December 8, 2009). Mr. Lampkins was represented by Rosemary Dettling and Joanne Donohue.
Employment and labor
JONES v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Judge orders FBI to reverse termination and reinstate client.
N/A
OUTCOME: Successful
On April 30, 2018, Administrative Judge Jeffrey S. Morris, from the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) Atlanta Regional Office, reversed our client’s termination from the United States Department ...of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and ordered the FBI to reinstate him. Our client, an Intelligence Analyst at the FBI’s facility in Miami, Florida, was terminated for excessive absences. After a hearing, Judge Morris issued a decision reversing the FBI’s termination. Judge Morris stated the agency failed to prove its charge of “excessive absences.” There was no dispute that our client had absences from the workplace on the dates and time periods in question. There was also no dispute that the absences were unexcused. The Administrative Judge found in our favor, however, because the agency failed to show through testimony and/or evidence that our client was absent on the dates in question for “compelling reasons beyond his control.” The Judge stated that because the agency used the word “failed” in all of its specifications (which indicated an element of choice on our client’s part), the agency effectively eliminated any claim by the agency that our client’s absences were “beyond his control.” This case is important because it is a reminder that MSPB judges can only assess the specific charges before them. If, as here, the agency mislabels the charge or fails to prove each element of its charge, the MSPB will reverse the adverse employment action.
Employment and labor
CARR v. NASA: $100,000 awarded for disability discrimination.
N/A
OUTCOME: Successful
On January 24, 2018, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Bryan M. Douglas, from the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, concluded that the National Aeronautics and Space ...Administration (NASA) intentionally committed an act of employment discrimination in violation of federal law. Judge Douglas found that NASA intentional discriminated against our client based on her known disability when it delayed approving her leave, failed to engage in the interactive process to discuss her disability limitations and multiple requests for reasonable accommodation, delayed accommodating her, and denied her request for telework. Judge Douglas awarded our client $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, among other relief.
