Opinion ID: 2371995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Award for Embarrassment, Humiliation and Indignity

Text: The employer argues that the Commission erred in basing its award of damages for embarrassment, humiliation and indignity upon events that are barred by the one year statute of limitations. [23] See D.C.Code § 2-1403.04(a) (2001) (formerly § 1-2544(a)). The employer also contends that the continuous course of conduct does not apply to allow the assertion of claims outside the period of limitations. Robinson argues that the damages are based properly on continuing direct discrimination. [W]hen a [discrimination] plaintiff can show `a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period,' all of the discriminatory conduct falls within the statute of limitations. Paul v. Howard Univ., 754 A.2d 297, 312 (D.C.2000) (quoting Doe v. District of Columbia Comm'n on Human Rights, 624 A.2d 440, 444 n. 5 (D.C.1993)). To be considered continuing in nature, however, the discrimination may not be limited to isolated incidents, but must pervade a series or pattern of events which continue into the filing period. Id. (quoting Doe, 624 A.2d at 445 n. 5). There is no showing here that the events falling outside the period of limitations for which these damages were awarded constitute a series or pattern of events that continued into the filing period. The Commission relied upon a series of unconnected events that occurred outside of the period of limitations. [24] Therefore, its award of damages for these elements must be vacated and redetermined based on only those events that fall within the period of limitations. [25]