8
Four of petitioner's EEO claims allege discriminatory
conduct that potentially violates the Civil Rights Acts of 1964
and the ADEA. Thus, assuming arguendo, the settlement proceeds
were received as a result of these claims, to such extent the
proceeds would not be excludable from petitioners' gross income.
More importantly, petitioners have failed to establish that any
portion of the settlement proceeds was received on account of
physical injury or sickness and thus excludable from income under
section 104(a)(2).
The settlement agreement does not expressly state what
specific claims the agreement covered. However, considering the
record as a whole, we do not think the Army intended to
compensate petitioner for physical or emotional injury. Mr.
Soloman testified that his primary intent was to prevent
petitioner from filing any additional costly complaints for a
reasonable period of time and to offer sufficient compensation to
satisfy petitioner. Mr. Soloman recalled that petitioner had 11
outstanding claims, 10 EEO claims, and 1 MSPB appeal at the time
that the settlement was reached. Each claim costs the Army
somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 to investigate and resolve.
Mr. Soloman testified that although the claims were without
merit, he thought $11,000 was fair as measured by $1,000 per
claim, and that no one claim was any more compelling than
another.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011