Disclaimer: Ms. Hosea’s case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by Ms. Hosea.
Taunya P. v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180022 (Sept. 27, 2019)
Ms. Hosea represented a disabled letter carrier who prevailed in her disability discrimination complaint. In response to an appeal by the Postal Service, the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations issued a decision affirming the administrative judge’s award of $250,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages (statutory cap is $300,000) and $131,794 in attorney’s fees and costs).
Complainant v. USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 570-2013-0042X (Jan. 2018)
Ms. Hosea represented a USPS employee (later given the pseudonym “Taunya P.” by the EEOC) who prevailed in her federal sector disability discrimination case. The EEOC administrative judge who presided over the hearing issued a decision finding that the Agency failed to accommodate the employee’s disability, retaliated against her, and subjected her to a hostile work environment.
The administrative judge ordered the Postal Service to pay $250,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages and take numerous corrective actions. The administrative judge also ordered the Postal Service to pay the complainant’s full attorney’s fees, noting in her decision that Ms. Hosea “provided exceptional representation to Complainant.”
Candi R. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120172238 (Feb. 28, 2019)*
Ms. Hosea successfully represented a Pentagon Force Protection Agency police officer who alleged that she was wrongfully removed from her position based on perceived disability. The Commission summarized its favorable decision in the EEOC Office of Federal Operations’ Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law (Fiscal Year 2019, Volume 3):
“Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her based on a perceived disability when it placed her on light duty and deemed her not medically qualified for her Police Officer position. Complainant was initially diagnosed with asthma. After she had an allergic reaction, she was prescribed an EpiPen. An allergist-immunologist subsequently diagnosed her with exercise-induced anaphylaxis but determined that she was fit for duty as a Police Officer. After Complainant provided medical documentation of these conditions to the Agency, she was placed on light-duty status. An Agency physician examined Complainant and determined that she was not fit for duty because she had a "potentially life-threatening medical condition" that impacted her ability to engage in physical activity.
On appeal, the Commission determined that the Agency regarded Complainant as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The Agency concluded that Complainant's asthma prevented her from immediately performing aerobic or strenuous tasks, and, as such, she was not qualified as a Police Officer. The Commission noted that the criteria used by the Agency were not unique to Complainant's Police Officer job, and the Agency regarded Complainant as being significantly restricted from performing all jobs requiring aerobic or strenuous exercise.
The Agency did not contest Complainant's ability to perform the duties of the Police Officer position but asserted that she was not qualified based upon the possibility of future injury to herself or others. The Commission found, however, that nothing in the record showed that Complainant's medical condition impaired her performance of essential tasks as a Police Officer. Additionally, the Agency did not individually assess Complainant and, instead, applied a blanket medical qualification standard without examining the specific application to Complainant when it disqualified her. Complainant had never experienced anaphylaxis while on duty or while performing a hazardous activity and would be able to self-administer an EpiPen if a reaction were to occur.
The Commission held that the Agency did not sustain its burden to show that Complainant posed a significant risk of harm to herself or others and was fully qualified to perform Police Officer duties. The Commission concluded that while it was reasonable for the Agency to initially place Complainant in light duty status pending receipt of medical documentation, the Agency discriminated against Complainant when it failed to return her to her Police Officer position in a full duty status. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to offer Complainant reinstatement to the Police Officer position, with appropriate back pay and benefits.” Candi R. v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120172238 (Feb. 28, 2019).
*The Department of Defense filed a Request for Reconsideration in this case. A final decision is pending.
Wells v. USPS, EEOC Hearing Nos. 510-2013-00099X; 510-2014-00018X (Mar. 2016)
Ms. Hosea represented Robert Wells, a veteran who suffers from combat-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After a lengthy EEOC hearing, the presiding administrative judge issued a decision finding that the Postal Service discriminated and retaliated against Mr. Wells by subjecting him to adverse transfers, forcing him to go on emergency administrative leave, subjecting him to an involuntary psychiatric fitness for duty examination, and disclosing his confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel. The administrative judge ordered the Postal Service to provide $120,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages to Mr. Wells, reimburse his attorney’s fees in full, and take numerous corrective actions.
EEOC Settlement Agreements
Ms. Hosea routinely negotiates settlement agreements on behalf of prospective, current, and former federal employees alleging unlawful discrimination. Recent examples include:
Complainant v. Smithsonian Institution (2019) -- $75,000 settlement for client who alleged that he was not allowed to compete for a position at the Smithsonian because of his race.
Complainant v. United States Secret Service (2019) -- $72,000 settlement for client who alleged that she was subjected to disparate treatment based on pregnancy.
Complainant v. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2018) -- $65,000 settlement for client who alleged he was subjected to security clearance-related discrimination based on sexual orientation and national origin.
Fischer v. Dep’t of Defense, MSPB # DC-0752-16-0746-I-2
Ms. Hosea represented Mr. Fischer, a Department of Defense employee who alleged that his reassignment was involuntary and therefore constituted a demotion for which he was not afforded due process. During the discovery phase of the MSPB appeal, Ms. Hosea negotiated a settlement in which Mr. Fischer received full back pay differential (over $100,000) and reimbursement of his attorney’s fees and costs.
Reid v. USPS, MSPB # PH-0752-16-0340-I-1
Ms. Hosea represented Ms. Reid, a supervisor at the U.S. Postal service who appealed her removal. At the conclusion of the MSPB hearing, the administrative judge indicated that he would likely issue a decision that was unfavorable to the Agency. The Agency quickly rescinded and expunged Ms. Reid’s removal, reinstated her to her position, provided full back pay, and restored her benefits. The Agency did not issue any further discipline against Ms. Reid for the alleged misconduct at issue in her MSPB appeal.
Cobia v. VA, MSPB # PH-0752-16-0283-I-1
Ms. Hosea represented Ms. Cobia, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs who appealed her removal. During the prehearing phase of the appeal, Ms. Hosea negotiated a settlement agreement in which the Agency rescinded Ms. Cobia’s removal, provided back pay and benefits, and reimbursed her attorney’s fees. When the VA did not fully comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, Ms. Hosea successfully petitioned the MSPB for enforcement (MSPB # PH-0754-16-0283-C-1).
McCoy v. Dep’t of the Air Force, MSPB # DC-0752-16-0346-I-1
Ms. Hosea represented Mr. McCoy, a U.S. Air Force civilian employee who appealed his performance-based removal. After Ms. Hosea’s cross-examination of the deciding official during the MSPB hearing, the presiding administrative judge stopped the hearing and encouraged the parties to settle the case. With the administrative judge serving as mediator, Ms. Hosea negotiated a favorable settlement agreement for Mr. McCoy.
Whitaker v. Army, MSPB # PH-0752-13-0057-I-2
Ms. Hosea represented Ms. Whitaker, a U.S. Army employee who appealed her removal. After Ms. Hosea’s cross-examination of the deciding official during Ms. Whitaker’s MSPB hearing, the administrative judge stopped the hearing and encouraged the parties to settle the case. Ms. Hosea negotiated a settlement agreement for Ms. Whitaker in which she was reinstated to her position at the Army with back pay and benefits.
Walker v. USPS, MSPB # PH-0752-12-0564-I-1
Ms. Hosea represented Mr. Walker, a supervisor with the U.S. Postal Service who appealed his demotion. During the discovery phase of the MSPB appeal, Ms. Hosea negotiated a settlement in which Mr. Walker’s demotion was rescinded, expunged, and replaced with a letter of warning. Mr. Walker was then retroactively reinstated into his supervisory position.
Proposed Removal Not Sustained (FCC)
Hosea Legal represented a supervisor at the Federal Communications Commission who was issued a proposed removal for alleged misconduct. Ms. Hosea submitted a thorough, compelling written reply and met with the deciding official to present an oral reply on behalf of her client. The FCC did not sustain the proposed removal and no discipline was issued against the employee.
Proposed Removal Mitigated to Demotion (USPS)
Hosea Legal represented a supervisor at the United States Postal Service who received a proposed removal for alleged misconduct. After Ms. Hosea presented a written and oral reply to the Agency, the deciding official mitigated the penalty to a demotion to a nonsupervisory position. Ms. Hosea then represented the employee in his appeal to the MSPB, during which she negotiated a settlement agreement that reinstated him to his supervisory position (see Walker v. USPS, above).
Proposed Demotion Mitigated to Letter of Reprimand (Army)
Hosea Legal represented an Army supervisor who was issued a proposed demotion for alleged misconduct. Ms. Hosea submitted a persuasive written reply and met with the deciding official in person for two hours to plead her client’s case. Subsequently, the deciding official sustained only one of the many charges and reduced the penalty from demotion to a letter of reprimand.
Proposed Suspension Mitigated and Held in Abeyance (Navy)
Hosea Legal represented a Navy supervisor who faced a proposed 14-day suspension. After Ms. Hosea presented written and oral replies on behalf of her client, the deciding official only sustained one specification and mitigated the suspension from 14 days to 3 days. The deciding official also agreed to hold the 3-day suspension in abeyance for one year and then expunge the entire disciplinary action provided the employee did not engage in any similar alleged misconduct during that 12-month period.
Proposed Suspension Mitigated to Letter of Reprimand (NIH)
Hosea Legal represented a National Institutes of Health employee who was issued a proposed 5-day suspension for alleged performance issues. After Ms. Hosea presented written and oral replies on behalf of her client, the Deciding Official mitigated the penalty from an unpaid suspension to a letter of reprimand.