WHAT ARE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR DISCRIMINATION?

A lot of FEDSMILL articles mention that employees who win discrimination grievances or complaints often get “compensatory damages.” So, we thought we would take just a minute to explain what that term means because these damages, up to an extra $300,000. beyond an employee’s back pay, interest and attorney fees, can often be much more than anything else an arbitrator or the EEOC awards the employee.  Compensatory damages include damages for (1) past pecuniary loss (out-of-pocket monetary loss), (2) future pecuniary or monetary loss, and (3) nonpecuniary loss (emotional harm).  Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses incurred because of the agency’s discriminatory action, including job-hunting expenses, moving expenses, medical expenses, psychiatric expenses, physical therapy expenses, and other quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses. These can be expenses incurred in the past or the future.  For example, if the employee’s future earning power has been reduced as a result of the discrimination that would be another instance of future pecuniary damages. 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.  When filing a grievance alleging discrimination asking for “all appropriate remedies” should be enough to remove any doubt that the arbitrator has the power to award any kind of compensatory damages. Moreover, there is no need to prove these damages at the initial arbitration or EEO hearing. The decision-makers usually order the parties to take 60 or so days to discuss an appropriate settlement figure or to then return to them for a final decision.

Posted in EEO/Discrimination | Tagged | Leave a comment

HOW TO AVOID THE “EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE LITE” TRAP IN ARBITRATION

Now that Trump’s two operatives on the FLRA have made clear their intention to weaken unions and collective bargaining, unions would be wise to counter the pending onslaught of precedent-trashing decisions from these two. One way they can do that is to write grievances to undermine the impact of the Kiko-Abbott scheme to overturn more arbitration decisions.  So, we have drafted a model grievance below that addresses the hypothetical situation of an agency deciding to deviate from the clear language of an agreement clause dealing with the equitable distribution of overtime assignments. The draft is annotated with footnotes/endnotes that explain why certain passages are included. Given that FEDSMILL does not provide legal advice, union leaders should check with their attorneys before using this model to ensure that it conforms to their own contract and to see if the attorney has suggested improvements. However, if the attorney tell you that detailed grievances like this alleging contract and statutory violations is not needed at all, get a second opinion.  Given that Kiko and Abbott appear to be primarily motivated by politics and anti-union animus, the best way unions have to push back is to rely on the subtle counter-tactics embedded in the statutory scheme that only a seasoned actual practitioner of labor-relations, who respects the value of collective bargaining, is likely to know.  For our part we will try to outline how to respond to Kiko-Abbott decisions as they come spitting out.  Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment

WHEN IS CO-WORKER HARASSMENT ILLEGAL AND THE AGENCY’S FAULT?

Although the lawyers break it down into a much longer list of criteria, EEOC recently put it in a nutshell as follows: “In the case of co-worker harassment, an agency is responsible for acts of harassment in the workplace where the agency (or its agents) knew or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Here are some facts from the case that will give you a more tangible idea of what that looks like. Continue reading

Posted in Co-worker Harassment | Tagged | Leave a comment

DON’T LET EMPLOYEES PICK THEIR “WORK FROM HOME (WFH)” DAYS

The “Harvard Business Review” just posted a very thoughtful research piece on adjusting telework schedules now that the epidemic is winding down. It is short, very understandable and something union negotiators should be aware of because any management negotiator with half a cup of intelligence is going to bring up the data to argue for changes. Check it out here.

Posted in Telework | Tagged | Leave a comment

TWO PROBATIONERS WIN REINSTATEMENT & GOBS OF BACK PAY

We love to pass on stories of probationers winning reinstatement and back pay because too many feds believe that there is nothing unions can do for probationary employees.  Here are the two latest examples. The first employee is going to be reinstated retroactive to December 2007 along with back pay for all that time and compensatory damages. That would include any career ladder promotions, step increases and time towards retirement among other benefits. And here is why she won. Continue reading

Posted in Probation Period | Tagged | Leave a comment

FLRA POSTS 9 TRAINING FILMS ON THE ULP INVESTIGATION PROCESS

The Authority has done a great job of explaining every step of the ULP investigation process for anyone who might be involve in one on behalf of a union member or the union itself. Check them out at https://www.flra.gov/resources-training/training/video-training

Posted in ULPs | Tagged | Leave a comment

EVEN DISCLOSURE BY MISTAKE OF MED INFO IS ILLEGAL AND COMPENSABLE

Instead of sending an email notifying his supervisor that an employee had been taken to the hospital, a CBP manager sent all 118 co-workers at an Arizona station naming an employee and disclosing that he “had been transported to a medical center after experiencing rapid heartbeat and tightness in his chest and left hand.”  The employee filed an EEOC complaint alleging that his private medical information had been illegally disclosed and asking for money damages. Continue reading

Posted in Medical Privacy | Tagged | Leave a comment

MSPB EXPANDS ACCUSED EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION

A Homeland Security Agent was fired for falsifying an official form.  When he tried to defend himself by pointing out how supervisory employees who committed the same offense were not fired, DHS management and the MSPB Judge would not let him see that evidence.  The terminated employee appealed, and got not only the information but another chance to prove his defense. Continue reading

Posted in Discipline/Adverse Action | Tagged | Leave a comment

COVID AND WORKERS’ COMP CLAIMS

Thanks to one of our readers who pointed out that Federal employees can potentially qualify for Workers Compensation based on acquiring COVID.  Check out this web site for details.

Posted in Workers' Comp | Tagged | Leave a comment

INSIDE THE MIND OF JAMES ABBOTT: MUDDLED OR MALICIOUS

As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that it is only on a rare day that James Abbott can be called something as flattering as merely malicious.  Most of the time his contempt for unions and a government run by laws rather than grudge-lugging political appointees are his most prominent feature. We were reminded of that in NLRB and NLRBU, 72 FLRA 80 (2021), a February decision where he issued a dissenting opinion criticizing even his ultra conservative FLRA colleague, Colleen Kiko Duffy. So absurd was Abbott’s view of how the law should operate that it got us wondering whether he is vying for election as Grand Dragon of some local QAnon lodge and that we can soon expect an opinion from him blaming Bill Gates for the Bill of Rights and Hillary for democracy.  In any event, this NLRBU case was about when the filing of a ULP bars a union from also filing a grievance in the future on similar facts and vice versa. Here are the facts in Jimmy’s Abbs own dissenting words. Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment