42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5

Section 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) limits available remedies without defeating liability when an employer shows it would have taken the same action absent the impermissible motive.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chris the Crazy Trader, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(g)(2)(B)

Under Title VII, a showing that the employer “would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor” will limit the remedies available but does not prevent liability.

Section 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) limits relief when an employer proves it would have taken the same action without the impermissible factor; damages remain available if the employer fails to prove that defense.

Maas · filed 2026-01-21(g)(2)(B)

Conversely, Joe is entitled to damages if JTM does not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that JTM would have treated him similarly even if Joe’s religious non-conformity had played no role in the decision to discharge him.

Section 2000e-5(g) permits back pay against public officials in their official capacities, but not in their individual capacities.

Barger v. State of Kan. · filed 1985-12-30(g)

We believe the more sound view is that public officials may be held liable for back pay under Title VII only in their official capacities and not in their individual capacities.

Section 2000e-5(g) limits Title VII back pay liability to the two years before an EEOC charge is filed; the limit is a cap on liability, not a statute of limitations.

Susan D. Bereda, and Cross-Appellee v. Pickering Creek Industrial Park, Inc., and Cross-Appellant · filed 1989-01-06(g)

Title VII includes the provision that “[b]ack pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the Commission.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). This constitutes a limit on liability, not a statute of limitations, and has been interpreted as a cap on the amount of back pay that may be awarded under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(g) permits back pay from a discriminatory employer but does not make individual defendants liable for back pay.

Canada v. Boyd Group, Inc. · filed 1992-10-27(g)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks redress in the form of back wages from Defendants Roth and Neuman in their individual capacity, Plaintiff’s claims must fail. In 1982 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that individual defendants could not be held liable for back pay under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). ... Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to individual liability for back pay must be granted.

Section 2000e-5(g) does not permit a back pay award against an individual employee.

Sattar v. Unocal Corp. · filed 1993-04-12(g)

This Court is bound by Padway, and nothing in the new Civil Rights Act of 1991 disturbs the Ninth Circuit’s holding that individual employees, despite their inclusion in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, cannot be liable for back pay under § 2000e-5(g). Therefore, the Court remits the back pay award against Forbes.

Section 2000e-5(g)(1) allows back pay for up to two years before a charge is filed, even if the employer says it cannot produce records from that period.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc. · filed 2003-03-31(g)(1)

Furthermore, the provisions of Section 2000e-5(g)(1) are unambiguous, and Defendant cites no case law in support of limiting the two-year back pay liability period because a Defendant alleges that it is unable to provide discoverable evidence or information about this period.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) permits claims within an EEOC charge and related claims reasonably expected to arise from its investigation.

Polay v. West Co. · filed 1986-01-27(f)(1)

I will allow plaintiff to include in the complaint all her claims which pertain to discriminatory actions which allegedly occurred during plaintiff’s employment. Those claims could reasonably be expected to have been the subject of the EEOC’s investigation into alleged discriminatory pay practices for which the right to sue letter was issued.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII suit to allegations in the EEOC charge or reasonably related to them; a general allegation of discriminatory treatment does not give adequate notice of discharge and failure to recall.

Allen v. St. Louis · filed 1986-02-19

This Court holds that in the instant case plaintiff’s general allegations in her EEOC charge of discriminatory treatment did not give the EEOC notice of discharge and failure to recall so as to satisfy this standard.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely EEOC charge; an age discrimination charge does not preserve a sex discrimination claim that a reasonable investigation of the charge would not encompass.

Thorkildson v. Insurance Co. of North America · filed 1986-03-26(e)

Furthermore, Thorkildson has not raised a genuine issue as to whether a reasonable investigation of the charge she filed would have encompassed sex discrimination claims. A charge of sex discrimination simply does not flow from the facts alleged by plaintiff. ... Therefore, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim because of her failure to raise this claim before the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(e) permits a timely EEOC charge to set the temporal scope of a Title VII class even when the filer dies before certification and her substitute is not an adequate class representative.

Kilgo v. Bowman Transportation, Inc. · filed 1986-05-15(e)

Moreover, Kilgo’s Title VII cause of action survived her death, and the district court permitted the substitution of her husband as a party in this case, even though the court determined that her husband would not be an adequate class representative. On the facts of this case, we hold that the date of her EEOC filing may be used to determine the temporal scope of the class.

Section 2000e-5(b) requires a Commissioner’s charge to be assessed on its face, and its oath or affirmation supports a presumption of good faith.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K-MART CORPORATION and K-Mart Enterprises, Inc., Respo · filed 1986-07-07(b)

The sufficiency of a charge under Section 706(b) and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a)(3) should be determined from the face of the charge. The Commissioner’s good faith is presumed because of Section 706(b)’s oath and affirmation requirement.

Section 2000e-5 requires a plaintiff to include a discrimination claim in an EEOC charge before bringing that claim in a Title VII suit.

Pritchett v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1986-12-30(e)

Assuming that such a conclusory statement alleges sufficient facts to state a claim, this claim must be dismissed because Pritchett failed to file any charges of promotion discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, § 706 of Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e) permits a judicial discrimination complaint to include allegations encompassed by the EEOC investigation, even if that investigation extends beyond the charge.

Smith v. Sentry Insurance · filed 1987-11-18(e)

In short, a judicial complaint of employment discrimination may include any allegations of discrimination encompassed by an EEOC investigation, even if the EEOC investigation was arguably broader than the EEOC charge triggering the investigation.

Section 2000e-5 requires a plaintiff to file an EEOC charge against an allegedly discriminatory party before suing that party under Title VII, unless the party waives the filing requirement.

Stache v. International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen · filed 1988-08-01

A private plaintiff must first file an EEOC complaint against the allegedly discriminatory party before bringing a Title VII suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (1978). ... We conclude that Stache failed to meet the conditions precedent to a Title VII suit, and the International has not waived them.

A Title VII claim omitted from an administrative charge may proceed if it is reasonably related to the discrimination alleged in the charge.

Williams v. Lycoming · filed 1991-01-03(c)

Thus, the Court finds that plaintiffs claims of racial harassment in this case are reasonably related to the 1986 CHRO discharge complaint and thus are properly before this Court.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim to proceed when it is included in an EEOC charge or reasonably related to that charge.

D'Zurella v. State of Kan. · filed 1991-03-18

We agree with the district court that D'Zurella's claim of constructive discharge allegedly occurring in May 1988, three years after the EEOC charge was filed and two years after she received a right-to-sue letter, is not reasonably related to the original EEOC charge and investigation.

Whether intake materials constitute a charge under § 2000e-5(b) depends on their content and whether the claimant intended to initiate the EEOC process.

Gomez v. Amoco Oil Co. · filed 1991-05-06(b)

In the instant case, there is an issue of fact as to whether the information supplied by Gomez was sufficient to put the EEOC on notice that he wished to “activate the machinery” of the Civil Rights Act with respect to the investigation of his claim of denial of promotional opportunities based on national origin. While the intake cover sheet, which was not filled out by Gomez, and Gomez’s EEOC Affidavit, executed August 19, 1987, contains sufficient information to constitute a charge within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), the typewritten charges reviewed and signed by Gomez do not contain this information.

Section 2000e-5 permits a retaliation claim reasonably related to a timely EEOC charge to proceed without a separate charge, but does not permit an unrelated harassment claim to proceed.

Clay v. ILC Data Device Corp. · filed 1991-08-27(e)

With respect to the case at bar, the charges contained within the fourth cause of action, alleging retaliation, clearly fall within the parameters of the “reasonably related” rule. ... As to the harassment charges contained in the second cause of action, in the Court’s view they cannot be deemed reasonably related to the charges of sexual discrimination contained in the first count.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim concerning a later discriminatory act that is reasonably related to a pending EEOC charge.

Witherspoon v. Roadway Express, Inc. · filed 1992-01-30(e)

This Court believes that the exception cited in Brown should apply in this case. The discriminatory termination charge of plaintiff is reasonably related to his prior discriminatory promotion claim.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely discrimination charge; an intake form did not satisfy that requirement where no formal charge followed and the respondent lacked notice within 300 days.

Sanders v. Culinary Workers Union Local No. 226 · filed 1992-04-29(e)

No formal charge was ever filed by Sanders against the Union which could be deemed to relate back to the intake form, and the Union did not have notice of the claim until after the expiration of the 300 day limit.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII claim in court to be reasonably related to the EEOC charge; a general allegation of race discrimination does not preserve every later claim.

Rush v. McDonald Corporation, Sharon Funston, and William R. Rose · filed 1992-06-29

We hold that it will not suffice to file general charges with the EEOC, as was done here, and then to expect that this allegation will permit all claims of race-based discrimination in a subsequent lawsuit.

Section 2000e-5 requires an EEOC charge before a Title VII suit and limits the claims a court may consider to those within the scope of the administrative charge.

Thornton v. Marcus · filed 1994-03-15

The EEOC did not subject the charges of race discrimination and retaliation to its administrative review process. Therefore, the Court will focus its analysis on Plaintiffs theory of sex discrimination.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to include an allegation in an EEOC charge before raising it in a district court complaint.

Gary S. KIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and Weyerbacher Terrace, Defendants-Appell · filed 1994-04-12(e)(1)

Kirk did not raise this issue in his EEOC charge. Instead, Kirk first complained about this alleged educational discrepancy in the complaint he filed with the district court. By doing so, Kirk violated the rule that allegations that are not included in an EEOC charge cannot be contained in a subsequent complaint filed in the district court.

Section 2000e-5(e) permits an EEOC charge within 180 days of the last occurrence of a continuing discriminatory practice.

Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Authority · filed 1994-05-12(e)

Title VII requires the filing of a charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e). ... The court concludes, therefore, that Saville’s allegations, if shown to violate Title VII, constitute a continuing violation. Accordingly, her sexual harassment allegations are properly before this court.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim in court only when it was included in the EEOC charge or is reasonably related to the charge and could grow out of its investigation.

Cheek v. Western and Southern Life Insurance Company · filed 1994-08-01

Because an employer may discriminate on the basis of sex in numerous ways, a claim of sex discrimination in an EEOC charge and a claim of sex discrimination in a complaint are not alike or reasonably related just because they both assert forms of sex discrimination. The claims are not alike or reasonably related unless there is a factual relationship between them.

Section 2000e-5 generally requires a Title VII plaintiff to name defendants in an EEOC charge, but an unnamed party may be sued when it had notice and an opportunity to conciliate.

Virgo v. Riviera Beach Associates · filed 1994-09-01

Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5, a person who wants to file a lawsuit under Title VII must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging a Title VII violation and exhaust all remedies provided by the EEOC. ... Hardaway and Main Street, as general partners in the Riviera Beach Limited Partnership, are functionally identical to the partnership and should not be protected by the naming requirement.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a plaintiff to file an EEOC charge before suing under Title VII and limits the lawsuit to claims fairly encompassed by that charge.

McNamara v. City of Chicago · filed 1994-11-02(f)(1)

The only Title VII claim “fairly encompassed” in these charges is disparate treatment—that CFD intentionally discriminated against whites and in favor of blacks and Hispanics by consciously promoting blacks and Hispanics out of rank order. A disparate impact claim is not fairly encompassed in the EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII lawsuit to discrimination claims included in the EEOC charge or like or related to those claims.

Bivins v. Jeffers Vet Supply · filed 1994-11-23

By limiting the scope of her charge, Bivins has waived any right to allege discriminatory treatment in terms of salary, job assignments, disciplinary actions and hiring practices.

A Title VII lawsuit is limited to discrimination alleged in the EEOC charge and claims like or related to those allegations.

Oliver v. Russell Corp. · filed 1994-12-28

The scope of a judicial complaint under Title VII is limited to the acts of discrimination contained in the EEOC charge or claims “ ‘like or related’ ” to the claims raised in the charge.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim reasonably related to the EEOC charge, subject to the dates stated in that charge.

Fernando v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center · filed 1995-04-05

This claim is reasonably related to Fernando’s complaint that he has been effectively denied the opportunity to continue his residence at Rush because of racial discrimination. Accordingly, mindful of the liberal standard district courts are charged to follow, Rush’s motion to dismiss Count I, as to the dates listed in the EEOC charge, is denied.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff may pursue a Title VII failure-to-promote claim.

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corporation Ct Corporation System J. Rixon Christopher Reid · filed 1995-06-23(f)(1)

Simpson also alleged a violation of Title VII arising out of the failure to promote him. This claim, however, was properly dismissed because Simpson never exhausted the appropriate administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1).

A Title VII claim may proceed when it is like or reasonably related to the allegations in the EEOC charge and grows out of those allegations.

Zorn v. Helene Curtis, Inc. · filed 1995-09-29(e)

Given the fact that Helene Curtis knew that Zorn never returned to work after being hospitalized for depression on August 31,1992, and given the fact that many of the elements of Zorn’s constructive discharge claim are set out in her EEOC claim, we find that the constructive discharge claim is sufficiently “like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations.”

A Title VII claim must fall within the scope of the EEOC investigation reasonably expected to grow from the administrative charge.

White v. Wells Fargo Guard Services · filed 1995-09-29(e)

As a result of the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that the harassment issue was not included in a reasonable investigation of the administrative complaint, and therefore, Ms. White has not properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction concerning the sexual harassment claim.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely EEOC charge; claims outside the scope of the charge and the investigation reasonably expected from it are unexhausted.

Williams v. Hager Hinge Co. · filed 1995-12-29(e)

Thus, the court finds that Ms. Williams has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her claims for denial of promotions, pay raises, transfers, and overtime. Consequently, these claims are not properly before the court.

A Title VII retaliation claim satisfies the EEOC charge requirement when an investigation of the retaliation would reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge.

Angotti v. Kenyon & Kenyon · filed 1996-01-26(e)(1)

Accordingly, an investigation of the retaliation charges would reasonably be expected to flow from the plaintiffs EEOC charge, and the plaintiff has satisfied the requirement that those charges be the subject of an EEOC charge before being brought as a suit in federal court.

A Title VII claim omitted from an EEOC charge may proceed if it is reasonably related to the charge.

Clements v. St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1996-03-25

Accordingly, Plaintiffs federal claim of sex discrimination can only survive if the unalleged claim is “reasonably related” to a timely filed EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5(e) allows a Title VII claim that was not expressly included in an EEOC charge if it is reasonably related to and grows out of the charge.

Moore v. Allstate Insurance · filed 1996-06-17(e)

Accordingly, the court finds that the Title VII race discrimination allegations in Moore’s amended complaint are like or reasonably related to and grow out of the allegations in her EEOC charge, and therefore that her Title VII race discrimination claims are not beyond the scope of her EEOC charge.

A Title VII plaintiff may pursue a claim omitted from an EEOC charge only if it is reasonably related to the charge and could have developed from the EEOC’s investigation.

Janet CHEEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1996-10-02

Not having raised the claim or even its seeds before the EEOC, Cheek was not entitled to bring it in her Title VII action.

Section 2000e-5(f) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file an administrative charge before suing; the civil claim must fall within the charge or an investigation reasonably expected to grow from it.

Ollie LATTIMORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POLAROID CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1996-11-05(f)

Both Title VII and Chapter 151B require an employee to file an administrative charge as a prerequisite to commencing a civil action for employment discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B, §§ 5-9. ... Having decided that the harassment claims are beyond the scope of Lattimore's administrative charge, we conclude that judgment as a matter of law should be entered in favor of Polaroid with respect to the harassment claims made pursuant to both Title VII and Chapter 151B.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an EEOC charge before a Title VII suit; a charge alleging sex discrimination does not exhaust a retaliation claim outside the reasonable scope of its investigation.

Abbey v. Sverdrup Corp. · filed 1996-11-22(e)

The filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC is a condition precedent to the bringing of a Title VII civil action, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). ... The actions Abbey complained of in her complaint were not the kind of actions that “are like or related” to the scope of an EEOC investigation of her sex discrimination charge. ... Consequently Abbey failed to meet the statutory prerequisite of filing a charge of retaliatory discrimination with the EEOC before filing a Title VII civil action.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to present a claim to the EEOC before suing, unless the claim is reasonably related to the EEOC charge.

Spurlock v. Nynex · filed 1996-12-06

In sum, plaintiffs Title VII disparate treatment claims contained in count one of plaintiffs complaint and his Title VII retaliation claim both survive defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the statutory exhaustion requirements. Plaintiffs Title VII disparate impact claim and his ADA claim must be dismissed at this time as neither is reasonably related to his August 14,1995, EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to give the EEOC enough information to identify a discrimination claim before bringing it in federal court.

Preyer v. Dartmouth College · filed 1997-06-25(f)(1)

In a Title VII claim, the plaintiff must exhaust all of her administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in federal district court. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (West 1994); Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co., 101 F.3d 218, 221 (1st Cir. 1996). In order to satisfy this reguirement with respect to a specific incident of discrimination, the charging party must give sufficient information to enable the EEOC to determine what the grievance is about.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to raise a discrimination ground in an EEOC charge before pursuing that ground at trial.

Madiebo v. Division of Medicaid/State of Mississippi · filed 1997-07-09

Because plaintiff failed to raise an issue of race discrimination in his EEOC complaint, by law, ... plaintiff is barred from pursuing said issue at trial.

A Title VII claim must be included in an EEOC charge or reasonably related to the claims in that charge.

Emmons v. Rose's Stores, Inc. · filed 1997-10-20(b)

In the instant case, the alleged incidents of harassment or truck tampering by unidentified individuals are not “reasonably related” to Emmons’ claims of discrimination in assignment of routes or of unequal pay. Therefore, Emmons’ Title VII sexual harassment claim must-be dismissed for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).

Section 2000e-5's EEOC charge requirement is satisfied for a later claim reasonably related to the allegations in the charge.

Julian v. Safelite Glass Corp. · filed 1998-01-27

A plaintiff will be deemed to have satisfied this administrative requirement as to allegations raised in a subsequent Complaint that are “like or reasonably related to the substance” of the allegations raised in the EEOC charge. ... Plaintiffs claim for racial harassment during his employment is reasonably related to the substance of his discharge claim and is not barred.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a Title VII claim to be included in an administrative charge or reasonably related to it.

McNight v. Dormitory Authority of State of NY · filed 1998-02-19(e)

The Court dismisses these paragraphs in their entirety. These paragraphs were neither included in, nor are reasonably related to, the administrative complaints filed by plaintiff.

Section 2000e-5 requires an EEOC charge before suit; a retaliation claim arising before the charge ordinarily is not exhausted unless the charge alleges it.

McKinley Craft v. Yellow Freight · filed 1998-02-23

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain Title VII claims not first filed with the EEOC. Seymore v. Shawver & Sons, Inc., 111 F.3d 794, 799 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 342 (1997) (construing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5). This jurisdictional requirement of administrative exhaustion applies equally to ADA claims. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). ... Under Seymore, however, Craft did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to any incidents of retaliation under the ADA occurring prior to his August 30, 1992, charge.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) bars a disparate impact claim when the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies by raising it in an EEOC charge.

Cochrane v. Houston Light and Power Co. · filed 1998-02-24(f)(1)

To the extent it is alleged, Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies by not asserting a disparate impact claim in her EEOC charge or any pleading before this Court clearly bars such a claim now.

Section 2000e-5 requires Title VII and ADA plaintiffs to bring their claims to the EEOC before suing in federal court.

Danfelt v. BD. COUNTY COM'RS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY · filed 1998-03-19

Section 2000e-5 requires Title VII and ADA plaintiffs to bring the case to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before suit may be brought in this Court.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim omitted from an EEOC charge if it is reasonably related to the allegations in that charge.

Tout v. County of Erie · filed 1998-03-30(e), (f)

In an action in which these procedural requirements have been satisfied, the plaintiff may raise any claim that is “reasonably related” to those asserted in the EEOC filing, even if that claim was not expressly addressed by the EEOC. ... This court does have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim of discriminatory discharge.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII claimant to exhaust a claim through an EEOC charge before bringing it in court.

Wilson v. Fairchild Republic Co., Inc. · filed 1998-05-11(f)(1)

It follows that, although Wilson was required to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the claim, he did not do so. It also follows that he would not have had a Title VII cause of action for the denial of the promotion, and that the claim could not properly have been included in the original pleadings.

An employer can waive an objection to the state or local administrative proceedings required by § 2000e-5(e) by participating in the EEOC investigation.

Scamardo v. Scott County, Ark. · filed 1998-06-08(e)

Even if she did not, the County effectively waived the exhaustion of administrative remedies argument by participating in the EEOC investigation. Therefore, the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied.

Section 2000e-5’s EEOC charge requirement, incorporated into the ADA, permits a claim omitted from the charge when it falls within the investigation reasonably expected to grow from that charge.

Keck v. New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services · filed 1998-06-24

It is well-established that a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and obtain a right to sue letter from them before proceeding in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating the exhaustion requirements of Title VII under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5). ... The Court finds that the discrimination claim based on sensitivity to perfume falls within the scope of the EEOC investigation which could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of disability discrimination on the basis of smoke sensitivity. ... Therefore, plaintiff is not barred from alleging discrimination on the basis of sensitivity to perfume.

As incorporated by the ADA, § 2000e-5(e)-(f) permits a claim omitted from an EEOC charge when it is reasonably related to the charge and could grow out of the EEOC investigation.

Denson v. Village of Bridgeview · filed 1998-08-24(e)-(f)

To bring a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must first file a charge alleging the unlawful employment practice with the EEOC and receive notice of right to sue. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)-(f)). ... However, an ADA plaintiff may bring a claim not included in the EEOC charge, “if there is a reasonable relationship between the allegations in the charge and the claims in the complaint, and the claims in the complaint can reasonably be expected to grow out of an EEOC investigation.” ... The court rejects the Village’s argument and finds that Denson is not limited to his “regarded as” claim.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII civil action to claims within or sufficiently related to the EEOC charge.

Killian v. Kinzer · filed 1998-09-01

Since Ms. Killian did not mark the box alleging harassment or describe the harassment in her EEOC charge, to allow her to assert this new claim would frustrate the goals of the EEOC administrative apparatus, that is, notice to an employer of the charge and an opportunity to resolve the dispute outside a courtroom. We find that the trial court correctly refused to hear this claim.

A Title VII claim must be like or reasonably related to the allegations in the EEOC charge to fall within its scope.

Porter v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 1998-09-02

A Title VII claim is within the scope of the EEOC charge if it is “like or reasonably related to the allegations of the [EEOC] charge and growing out of such allegations.” ... While paragraphs six through nine contain background information about the same people as the EEOC charge, their conduct several years before the August 1996 incident is entirely unrelated to IBM’s alleged discrimination and retaliation against Porter in February, March and May of 1997.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file an EEOC charge before bringing a private civil action.

Nweke v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1998-10-29(e)

Filing a charge with the EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a private civil action under Title VII.

A Title VII claim omitted from an EEOC charge may proceed if it is reasonably related to the charge and falls within the reasonable scope of an EEOC investigation.

Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · filed 1998-12-01(e)

Due to Alonzo’s pronouncement that he was discriminated against because he is a Hispanic, because it has not been established that the designation of being an Hispanic precludes a claim of racial discrimination, and given the uncertainty among courts as to whether “Hispanic” is better characterized as a race or a national origin, Alonzo’s claims of racial discrimination are reasonably related to his claims of national origin discrimination as they fall within the reasonable scope of EEOC investigation.

A Title VII complaint may include claims reasonably expected to grow out of the administrative charge, and an employer's failure to receive a supplemental statement does not defeat those claims when agency adjudication was not thwarted.

Dube v. Hadco Corp. · filed 1999-02-04(e)

Although Dube's attorney should have sent a copy of his supplemental letter to Hadco, failure to do so cannot be said to have thwarted Title VII's scheme of agency adjudication.

Section 2000e-5(b) requires the EEOC’s charge and investigation to support the geographic scope of a pattern-or-practice claim.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allied Systems, Inc. · filed 1999-02-19(b)

This Court previously determined that the EEOC’s charge and investigation did not adequately comply with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) sufficient to support its allegation of a nationwide employment discrimination policy by Allied. ... Thus, the instant litigation is limited to claims of a pattern or practice of discriminatory conduct at the Allied Selkirk terminal only.

A retaliation claim that grows out of an EEOC charge may be raised in court without a separate administrative charge, even after the employee has been terminated.

Burke v. AT & T Technical Services Co., Inc. · filed 1999-07-14

Nealon, then, is not limited to retaliation claims asserted while the claimant remains employed; it applies to all retaliation claims that arise after a plaintiff has filed an administrative charge with the EEOC because such retaliation claims by definition grow out of the particular discrimination charges filed with the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a claimant to include an alleged unlawful practice in an EEOC charge before pursuing that claim in court.

Y. Greer v. Emerson Electric Co. · filed 1999-08-06(e)(1)

We do not consider this claim because Greer did not plead a hostile environment claim in her Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(b) makes the EEOC charge, rather than an intake questionnaire, the basis for notice to the employer and conciliation.

Novitsky v. American Consulting Engineers, L.L.C. · filed 1999-10-26(b)

Under the statute, however, it is the charge rather than the questionnaire that matters. 42 U.S.C. sec.2000e-5(b). See Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 470 (7th Cir. 1991). Only the charge is sent to the employer, and therefore only the charge can affect the process of conciliation.

Section 2000e-5 requires a plaintiff to present a retaliation claim in an EEOC charge when the alleged retaliation occurred before the charge and did not grow out of it.

Fry v. Holmes Freight Lines, Inc. · filed 1999-11-15(e)

Without an allegation in the EEOC charge of retaliatory harassment, as distinct from sexual harassment, there can be no exhaustion.

A Title VII claim must be fairly set forth in an EEOC charge, or be like or reasonably related to that charge, before it may proceed in court.

Van Nguyen v. Dobbs International Services, Inc. · filed 2000-03-10(e)

Therefore, because the facts underlying Nguyen’s hostile work environment claim were not fairly set forth in his administrative charge, Nguyen’s hostile work environment claim will be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge before suit, and claims in a later lawsuit must fall within the charge’s scope.

Sweeney v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2000-04-17(e)(1)

The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs Title VII and ADA hostile work environment claims because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to these claims. While Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge prior to commencing this lawsuit, the court finds that Plaintiffs claims alleging hostile work environment, whether brought under Title VII or the ADA, exceed the scope of her EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5(b) requires a written, sworn charge; an oral allegation omitted from and unrelated to the filed charge cannot support a Title VII claim.

Vela, Rebecca R. v. Village Sauk Village · filed 2000-06-22(b)

We hold, however, that an oral charge, if made as she testified, not reflected in nor reasonably related to the charge actually filed, is not a sufficient predicate for a claim of sexual harassment in her civil action. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-5(b) requires that, "Charges shall be in writing under oath or affirmation" and 29 C.F.R. sec. 1601.9 makes the same requirement.

Section 2000e-5(b) bars claims omitted from an EEOC charge unless they are reasonably related to the claims presented there.

Ghose v. Century 21, Inc. · filed 2000-08-18(b)

In addition, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) bars Ghose from bringing other causes of action not included in his original EEOC complaint.

Section 2000e-5 requires a timely EEOC charge that gives notice of each discrimination claim; identifying retaliation only in an intake questionnaire does not exhaust that claim.

Price v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Co. · filed 2000-08-21(b), (c), (e)

In order to exhaust administrative remedies, an individual must timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC setting forth the facts and nature of the charge. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (c), (e). ... The court concludes that by not checking the `retaliation' box and by not specifically alleging retaliation in the text of her charge, plaintiff deprived the charged party with notice of the charge.

Section 2000e-5’s administrative exhaustion procedures, incorporated into Title I of the ADA, require an EEOC charge and a right to sue letter before a disability discrimination claim may proceed in federal court.

Peltier v. Apple Health Care, Inc. · filed 2000-09-29

It is well established that a plaintiff must file a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC and obtain a right to sue letter from the EEOC before proceeding in federal district court. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs ADA claim is not reasonably related to the ADEA claim she filed with the CCHRO and EEOC. As such, she cannot maintain this claim in the instant action.

Section 2000e-5 generally requires a Title VII plaintiff to name a defendant in the EEOC charge; the identity of interest exception is unavailable when counsel prepared the charge.

Hamad v. Nassau County Medical Center · filed 2000-12-13

In accordance with the majority of district court’s addressing the issue in the Circuit, this Court similarly holds that the “identity of interest” exception is not available to plaintiff since he was represented by counsel at the time he filed his EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5 makes presentation of a Title VII claim to the EEOC a waivable precondition to suit rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.

Francis v. City of New York · filed 2000-12-06

We hold that presentation of a Title VII claim to the EEOC “is not a jurisdictional [prerequisite], but only a precondition to bringing a Title VII action that can be waived by the parties or the court,” ... and that defendants waived that precondition in this case.

A pregnancy discrimination charge can support a later Title VII sex discrimination claim because pregnancy discrimination is discrimination based on sex.

Nelson v. Wittern Group, Inc. · filed 2001-01-29(b)

Since discrimination based on pregnancy is, by statute, discrimination based on sex, ... it seems reasonable to conclude that an administrative charge based on pregnancy discrimination can support a later-added judicial charge based on sex discrimination. ... As it stands, the Plaintiffs sex and pregnancy discrimination claims should, at this stage, be allowed to proceed side-by-side.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII suit to claims that could reasonably grow out of the EEOC charge; a race charge did not encompass a national origin claim.

Gaston v. Home Depot USA, Inc. · filed 2001-02-02(e)(1)

However, nothing in Plaintiff’s EEOC filing reflects an intention to pursue a claim of national origin discrimination. In fact, Plaintiff was quite clear that his claim was based on race, and it is not reasonable to expect that the subsequent EEOC investigation would also embrace national origin. ... Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain a Title VII claim based on national origin discrimination, but the remainder of Plaintiffs claims are arguably colorable.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely discrimination charge before a Title VII suit, and claims outside the charge that would not reasonably arise from its investigation are unexhausted.

Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hospital · filed 2001-02-27(e)(1)

A review of Plaintiffs EEOC charge reveals that nowhere in the charge did she raise any claims or allegations related to discrimination based upon race or national origin. The charge rather specifically limits its scope to discrimination based upon disability. None of the facts alleged in the charge reasonably relate to claims of discrimination based upon race or national origin nor would such claims be reasonably expected to arise from an EEOC investigation.

Section 2000e-5(f) requires a plaintiff to present Title VII claims to the EEOC before suing; the lawsuit may include claims in the charge and claims reasonably related to them.

Gorence, Rogene v. Eagle Food Centers · filed 2001-03-08(f)

They require that a plaintiff’s claims first be presented to the agency. 29 U.S.C. sec. 626(d); 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-5(f). Although we read charges of discrimination liberally in order to allow a claim of discrimination that is reasonably related to the allegations in the charge, it is the claims presented to the agency and claims reasonably related to those in the charge which form the basis for a federal court lawsuit.

Section 2000e-5 allows a retaliation claim in court when it reasonably relates to and grows out of the discrimination alleged in the agency charge, even if the charge did not allege retaliation.

Clockedile v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections · filed 2001-03-30(e)(1)

On balance, we think the cleanest rule is this: retaliation claims are preserved so long as the retaliation is reasonably related to and grows out of the discrimination complained of to the agency--e.g., the retaliation is for filing the agency complaint itself.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s charge-filing deadline does not bar later conduct reasonably related to a timely administrative charge when that charge exhausted the later claim.

Meyer v. Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc. · filed 2001-05-21(e)(1)

Nor does the fact that Meyer’s claims pursuant to a second administrative charge, filed on February 26, 1996, are time-barred somehow limit the period for actionable failure-to-accommodate conduct. The time bar on claims in the second administrative charge can’t apply to claims arising from conduct that “ ‘grows out of or is like or reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in the [first] administrative charge’ ” on which a timely judicial complaint was filed.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII suit to allegations in the EEOC charge and claims reasonably expected to grow from that charge.

Floyd v. Sverdrup Corp. · filed 2001-08-09

A Title VII plaintiff is limited to the allegations in his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaint and any charges reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination. ... Floyd’s EEOC complaint raised only a racial discrimination claim. Thus, he is limited to that claim in federal court.

Section 2000e-5(b) permits the EEOC to broaden an investigation of an individual charge when it uncovers evidence of classwide discrimination.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dial Corp. · filed 2001-08-14(b)

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), the EEOC notified Dial of Allen’s sexual harassment charge and began an investigation. The EEOC permissibly broadened the scope of its investigation when it discovered evidence suggesting that Dial had engaged in class-wide discrimination by subjecting women to sexual harassment and by failing to take “prompt, effective action” in response to sexual harassment complaints.

Section 2000e-5(e) does not require an EEOC charge within 300 days of an ordinance’s enactment when the charge challenges an allegedly continuing discriminatory preference.

Cleveland Branch, National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Parma · filed 2001-08-28(e)

The NAACP was not required to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the enactment of the 1988 ordinance, as the NAACP argues, in part, that Parma is still according an unfair preference to its residents.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII claimant to present the substance of a discrimination grievance to the EEOC before suing; an amended charge identifying national origin can satisfy that requirement.

Chatterjee v. School District of Philadelphia · filed 2001-10-02(e)(1)

In other words, a complainant must submit the sum and substance of his or her grievance to the EEOC before the court may consider it. ... However, defendants seem to have overlooked the fact that in his amended charge before the PHRC and the EEOC, filed on October 5, 1998, Dr. Chat-terjee did indeed reference his national origin as the basis for his allegations of discrimination. ... In view of the language in Dr. Chatterjee’s amended charge, defendants have not advanced persuasive considerations for dismissal on these grounds.

Section 2000e-5(f) limits a Title VII suit to discrimination allegations included in the administrative charge.

O'Connor v. Northshore International Insurance Services, Inc. · filed 2001-10-22(f)

Because O’Connor did not include her additional allegations of age and sex discrimination in her administrative charge, the court cannot consider any instances of age or sex discrimination in determining whether the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive; and to the extent O’Connor attempts to make distinct claims based on age or sex discrimination, the attempt fails.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to present a claim to the EEOC before bringing it in federal court.

Longoria v. New Jersey · filed 2001-10-17(b), (f)

Title VII plaintiffs may not seek relief or redress in federal court for any claim that has not first been presented to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Section 2000e-5 permits a retaliation claim omitted from an EEOC charge to proceed when it is reasonably related to the charge and allowing it causes no prejudice.

Soares v. University of New Haven · filed 2001-11-29(e), (f)

Although plaintiffs failure to raise these claims in her previous federal lawsuit, which was filed after some of the retaliatory conduct had already occurred, is unexplained, the Court finds that as there has been no showing of any prejudice to defendant in permitting her to pursue the claims in this lawsuit, there is no basis for rejecting plaintiffs claims as not reasonably related to her CHRO/EEOC filings.

A Title VII plaintiff who has exhausted administrative remedies with the EEOC may amend a complaint to allege that exhaustion.

Douglass-Woodruff v. Nevada · filed 2001-11-30(b)

On remand, the district court should grant a timely motion to amend. ... Douglass-Woodruffs pleading could be saved by an amendment that alleges that she exhausted her administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies; the court will not consider claims omitted from the initial EEO complaint.

Vester v. Henderson · filed 2001-12-04

Title VII provides a specific grievance procedure for employment discrimination claims. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. ... Therefore, any claims not included in Plaintiffs initial EEO complaint will not be considered.

Later communications with the EEOC can add class-based theories to a charge, but a claimant must give the EEOC notice of a disparate-impact theory to exhaust that claim.

Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2001-11-16(b)

The Court concludes that the two subsequent letters written by Ms. Donaldson, and the alleged subsequent conversations between Ms. Donaldson and her EEOC counselor, were sufficient to introduce theories of class liability, but insufficient to raise add a theory of disparate impact liability to her underlying charge.

Section 2000e-5(b) requires a written EEOC charge under oath or affirmation; a discrimination claim omitted from the verified charge is not exhausted by unverified intake materials.

McDonald v. Corrections Corp. of America · filed 2002-01-10(b)

Here, Plaintiffs charge of discrimination, attached as an exhibit to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, is the only document the parties have provided that meets the statutory requirements. The charge is the only document Plaintiff filed with the EEOC that she signed under penalty of perjury. ... Plaintiffs charge of discrimination does not include a gender discrimination claim.

A retaliation claim reasonably related to an earlier EEOC discrimination charge requires no second charge and is not barred by the 300-day filing limit.

Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A. · filed 2001-12-18(e)(1)

Because Legnani’s retaliation claim is reasonably related to her initial discrimination charge, she was not required to file a second charge with the EEOC for that claim.

Section 2000e-5 permits a Title VII claim for a termination that occurs after an administrative charge when the termination is reasonably related to the charge and falls within the expected EEOC investigation.

Weems v. Federated Mutual Insurance · filed 2002-03-20(e)

Thus, the allegations underlying the discriminatory discharge claim were neither significantly separate in time nor distinct in kind from those alleged in the administrative complaint. Mr. Weems could therefore reasonably conclude that the subsequent termination would fall within the scope of the EEOC’s investigation.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies for each claim before seeking federal court review.

Preston v. Good Nature Cafe · filed 2002-03-04(f)(1)

Preston must exhaust his administrative remedies on each of his claims before seeking review in federal court.

A request to withdraw an EEOC charge does not defeat exhaustion unless the EEOC consents to the withdrawal.

Hightower v. Roman, Inc. · filed 2002-03-06(f)(1)

Similarly, the Court finds in this case that Plaintiffs’ requests to the NJDCR to withdraw their EEOC and NJDCR charges did not constitute an effective withdrawal of the EEOC claims, and Plaintiffs properly exhausted their administrative remedies.

Section 2000e-5(c) gives a state agency sixty days to address a discrimination charge; dismissing the state petition before an agency decision does not defeat exhaustion.

Candillo v. North Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2002-03-18(c)

Furthermore, it is immaterial that Plaintiff dismissed his petitions with OAH before OAH reached a decision. The sixty-day period merely gives OAH an opportunity to invoke state rules of law.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies for Title VII discrimination claims.

Tungol v. Certainteed Corp. · filed 2002-04-16(e)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Tungol (Doc. # 42) be and hereby is GRANTED with respect to the following issues/claims: 1. Failure to exhaust Title VII and ADEA administrative remedies with respect to plaintiffs 1999 performance evaluation and 2000 failure to promote discrimination claims; 2. Plaintiffs 1999 failure to promote discrimination claim; 3. Plaintiffs retaliation claims based on the transfer to process engineering, the 1999 failure to promote and the 1999 performance evaluation.

Section 2000e-5 permits a retaliation claim that is reasonably related to a timely EEOC charge to proceed without a separate administrative charge.

Russo v. Lightning Fulfillment, Inc. · filed 2002-04-18(e), (f)

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs retaliation claim, which rests on her allegations that immediately following the filing of the CHRO and EEOC complaints she began to be mistreated by defendant and was pressured to withdraw her complaints, was reasonably related to plaintiffs administrative complaints.

Section 2000e-5’s charge procedures, incorporated into the ADA, limit a lawsuit to claims raised in the administrative charge or reasonably expected to emerge from its investigation.

Greenier v. PACE, LOCAL NO. 1188 · filed 2002-04-23

Thus, the general rule is that the Complaint must be limited to the events identified in the administrative charge and other events that an investigation of the charge can reasonably be expected to uncover.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a claimant to file an administrative charge before suing under Title VII.

Lebron-Rios v. U.S. Marshal Service · filed 2002-04-24(e)

To seek recovery for their Title VII claims, plaintiffs were required to file administrative charges prior to filing suit. They have faded to do so and they have not given any reason to justify their noncompliance. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint as to M.V.M., Inc., Luis Torres, his wife Maria Cortes, Luis Comas, and his wife Cristina Pagan.

A Title VII hostile environment claim satisfies the EEOC charge requirement when a liberal reading of the charge gives notice of the discrimination underlying the claim.

Kovoor v. School District of Philadelphia · filed 2002-07-15(e)

Though substantively his complaint more closely resembles a failure to hire claim, a broad reading of the EEOC charge provides notice of national origin discrimination spanning a period of at least four years. Adopting this liberal construction and giving plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, Kovoor’s Title VII hostile environment claim is not deficient for failure to exhaust.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a Title VII claimant to file an administrative charge before suing.

Lebron-Rios v. U.S. Marshal Service · filed 2002-07-24(e)

To seek recovery for them Title VII claims, plaintiffs were required to file administrative charges prior to filing suit. They have failed to do so, and they have not given any reason to justify their noncompliance.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a constructive-discharge claim to be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of when the discharge accrued, which can be when the employee leaves work and does not return rather than when he formally resigns.

Benkert v. TX Dept Cr Justice · filed 2002-09-03(e)

Therefore, even if a claim of constructive discharge is not barred by res judicata, it is barred because it was ... not timely filed with the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely EEOC charge before suit; an uncharged discrimination claim may proceed if facts in the charge or investigation would prompt the EEOC to investigate it.

Young v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. · filed 2002-11-22(e)

A plaintiff must timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before filing a complaint in federal court. ... For a charge to grow out of an ensuing investigation, the plaintiffs EEOC charge must, at a minimum, relate facts that would prompt the EEOC to consider or investigate other forms of discrimination.

A plaintiff cannot pursue a Title VII sex discrimination claim that she omitted from her administrative charge.

O'Connor v. Northshore International Insurance Services · filed 2003-04-11(f)

Finally, it remains true that her age and sex discrimination claims were properly dismissed for failure to include them in her administrative charge.

Section 2000e-5(b)’s administrative charge procedure limits a later Title VII suit to claims stated in the EEOC charge or within the scope of a reasonable investigation of that charge.

Hejirika v. Maryland Division of Correction · filed 2003-05-22(b)

A reasonable investigation triggered by these charges would not encompass whether a hostile work environment existed. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim of harassment or a hostile work environment under Title VII will be dismissed without leave to amend because plaintiffs did not include such allegations in their charges with the EEOC and failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to this claim.

An EEOC lawsuit must reasonably grow out of both the underlying discrimination charge and the EEOC’s investigation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jillian's of Indianapolis, IN, Inc. · filed 2003-06-16(b)

We conclude here that the same reasonableness standard governs the relationship between the EEOC’s eventual lawsuit and the investigation that gave rise to it. In other words, the eventual lawsuit must arise from the “scope of the investigation.”

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII claim to matters within the scope of the EEOC investigation or an investigation reasonably expected to grow out of the charge.

Encinas v. Tucson Electric Power Co. · filed 2003-06-27

Because an investigation of hostile work environment could not reasonably be expected to grow out of Encinas’s charge, we conclude that her racial harassment claim is not exhausted.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an EEOC charge before a Title VII suit; claims outside the charge may proceed if they are reasonably related to it.

Foster-Bey v. Potter · filed 2003-11-17(e)

Mr. Foster-Bey’s allegations regarding the failure to promote him and his generalized hostile environment claims, however, do not satisfy even the “loose pleading” standard. ... As such, the charges related to a failure to promote and a generalized hostile environment are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) permits a Title VII claim when it is reasonably related to the EEOC charge and could follow from a reasonable administrative investigation.

Williams v. Mancom, Inc. · filed 2004-06-28(f)(1)

Where plaintiff has already suggested in her EEOC charge that race is a motivating factor in her former employer’s decision not to rehire her, it is reasonable to expect that an investigation into whether defendant’s motive for not considering plaintiff was discriminatory might uncover evidence of the related illegal motive of retaliation based on plaintiffs complaints of discrimination. Therefore, plaintiff has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l), and her claim against defendant based on alleged retaliatory discrimination is properly before this court.

Section 2000e-5’s EEOC charge procedure permits claims based on incidents described in an intake questionnaire and attached complaint even when the formal charge omits those incidents.

Russell v. Bronson Heating and Cooling · filed 2004-11-16(b)

The Court looks to the principle that the EEOC Charge should be “liberally construed to encompass all charges reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” ... Plaintiff did recite incidents of sex harassment and sex and pregnancy discrimination prior to August 2002 in her Intake Questionnaire and attached complaint. ... Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an EEOC charge within 300 days of notice of the alleged discriminatory act when the state has its own discrimination laws and an agency empowered to enforce them.

Moorehead v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2005-01-06(e)

Where the alleged act of discrimination occurs in a state that has its own anti-discrimination laws and a state agency is empowered to enforce the laws, the charge of discrimination must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days after the date of the alleged unlawful act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). ... Assuming Moorehead in fact did not hear that he was not promoted until April, 1998, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that he did file his administrative complaint within 300 days from the time he received notice of the alleged discriminatory act — defendant’s failure to promote him. ... For these reasons, summary judgment based on the timeliness of plaintiffs administrative complaint is denied.

A court may hear a Title VII claim only if it was included in the plaintiff’s EEOC charge or is reasonably related to that charge.

Bedden-Hurley v. New York City Board of Education · filed 2005-01-11

The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs Title VII claim because Plaintiff failed to allege discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, color, or religion in her EEOC charge; Plaintiff alleged only age discrimination in violation of the ADEA.

Section 2000e-5 generally requires a Title VII plaintiff to name a defendant in the EEOC charge, but an identity of interest with a named party can excuse the omission.

Manos v. Geissler · filed 2005-07-18

Generally, a plaintiffs Title VII claims against a defendant who is not named as a respondent in an EEOC charge or the right-to-sue letter in connection with the complaint will be dismissed from a Title VII action. ... Accordingly, the “identity of interest” exception does not apply to Midas and plaintiffs Title VII claim against Midas must be dismissed.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies; a lawsuit cannot rest on conduct involving different time frames, actors, and allegations from those in the administrative charge.

Chacko v. Patuxent Institution · filed 2005-11-29(f)(1)

We hold that a plaintiff fails to exhaust his administrative remedies where, as here, his administrative charges reference different time frames, actors, and discriminatory conduct than the central factual allegations in his formal suit.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a Title VII plaintiff's EEOC charge to encompass the discrimination alleged in a later lawsuit.

Brettler v. Purdue University · filed 2006-01-10(e)

Therefore, as a general rule, a Title VII plaintiff cannot bring a claim in a lawsuit that was not encompassed in the EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5 permits a discrimination claim to proceed after an administrative charge when the claim is like or reasonably related to the charge’s allegations.

Canterbury v. Federal-Mogul Ignition Co. · filed 2006-03-03(e)

In order to pursue a claim of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating the enforcement provisions of Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b)(c) and (e). ... The Court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiffs diabetes discrimination claim may proceed because it is sufficiently like or related to his reference to “blood sugar” in his administrative claim, such that he reasonably could have expected that the scope of the investigation into the matter would have included investigation into his diabetic condition.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a timely EEOC charge before a Title VII suit; claims outside the charge and the investigation reasonably expected from it cannot proceed.

Hurst v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2006-03-14(f)(1)

Before bringing a civil action under Title VII or the FEHA, a plaintiff must have timely filed an administrative charge with the EEOC and the DFEH, respectively. ... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12960(b), 12965(b). ... Accordingly, Hurst failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the district court properly dismissed his second amended complaint.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely EEOC charge, and a plaintiff relying on an earlier mailing must show that it qualified as a charge.

Salas v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2006-04-25(e)

Plaintiff bore the burden of showing that his charge to the EEOC was filed timely. By not submitting a copy of the document he mailed to the EEOC in December, plaintiff made it impossible for the court to determine that his December mailing to the EEOC constituted a timely-filed charge.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII lawsuit to claims within the scope of the discrimination charges filed with the agency.

Kreilkamp v. Roundy's, Inc. · filed 2006-05-01

Allowing plaintiff to litigate a claim that he did not include in the charges he filed with the ERD, would circumvent the rule that the first opportunity to investigate and resolve the claim belongs to the agency which has primary jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim that he was subjected to harassment after December 18 and 19, 2004, will be dismissed as beyond the scope of the underlying discrimination charges plaintiff filed with the ERD.

Section 2000e-5 requires a plaintiff to include each discrete disparate-treatment claim in an EEOC charge before pursuing it in a Title VII suit.

Martin v. Merck & Co., Inc. · filed 2006-08-28

Thus, only these claims of disparate treatment under Title VII survive, and the rest must be dismissed for failure to exhaust.

Section 2000e-5(b) requires a Title VII EEOC charge to be in writing, under oath or affirmation, and in the form the EEOC requires; verification is mandatory.

Rizo v. State of Alabama Department of Human Resources · filed 2007-01-31(b)

Under Title VII and the ADA, a charge must be “in writing under oath or affirmation” and “contain such information and be in such form as the [EEOC] requires.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). ... The verification requirement is mandatory. ... Here, the undisputed record shows that Rizo did not file a valid charge with the EEOC against CIBER until April 17, 2003, which was 193 days after he was fired.

A retaliation claim is exhausted when it could reasonably be expected to grow out of the investigation of the administrative charge.

Kitchen v. WSCO Petroleum Corp. · filed 2007-01-29(e)(1)

Here it could be reasonably expected that Kitchen’s allegation of retaliation based on his demotion would grow out of an investigation of his BOLI complaint.

Section 2000e-5 requires a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust an EEOC charge before suing; a sexual harassment claim outside the reasonable scope of that charge must be dismissed.

Cobb v. Marshall · filed 2007-03-14

Consequently, the court finds that Plaintiffs Title VII sexual harassment claim in Count I is beyond the scope of her EEOC charge and is due to be dismissed.

A Title VII charge must allege facts that put the EEOC on notice of a claim; checking the retaliation box alone does not exhaust that claim.

Givs v. City of Eunice · filed 2007-05-21(e)(1)

Even though plaintiff checked both the race and retaliation boxes on the EEOC complaint, the Court does not accept that merely checking the retaliation box is sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies.

A Title VII plaintiff may rely on another claimant’s timely charge when it alleges a continuing discriminatory practice that gives the employer and agencies notice of later claims based on the same conduct.

Garrett v. Department of Corrections · filed 2007-06-20

Thus, the DOC and the EEOC and FCHR were put on notice that there would be later-arising claims challenging the same actions.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires the EEOC to sue a respondent named in a charge, but the facts it seeks to prove need not be listed in that charge.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Concentra Health Services, Inc. · filed 2007-08-03(f)(1)

Concentra's argument does not work because while the defendant the EEOC sues must be named as a respondent in a charge, the facts it seeks to prove need not be listed there.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires the EEOC to sue a respondent named in a charge but does not require the charge to list every fact the EEOC seeks to prove.

EEOC v. Concentra Health Ser · filed 2007-08-03(f)(1)

Concentra’s argument does not work because while the defendant the EEOC sues must be named as a respondent in a charge, the facts it seeks to prove need not be listed there.

Section 2000e-5 requires a discrimination claim to be presented in an EEOC charge or to be reasonably related to the claims presented there.

Rodriguez v. City of New York · filed 2008-02-11(e)(1)

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that an ADA claim cannot be asserted because plaintiff did not check the box for an ADA claim in her filing with the EEOC or otherwise indicate in any way that she was seeking to assert a claim under the ADA.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an administrative charge to identify the parties and generally describe the complained-of practices; a claim outside the charge’s scope is not exhausted.

Muldrow v. Department of Defense · filed 2008-02-13(e)

A claimant must be “sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.” ... Since Plaintiff did not present the retaliation claim to the EEOC, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Section 2000e-5(f) requires an administrative charge before a discrimination suit; the charge and its attachments may give sufficient notice of a claim even when the employee does not check the corresponding box.

Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Potter · filed 2009-03-31(f)

After reviewing the administrative charge filed by González, including the attached statement of facts, this court finds that González’s charge sufficiently provided USPS with prompt notice of the claims against them, including the disability discrimination claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(f), as applied to ADA claims, requires administrative exhaustion before suit and allows claims reasonably within the scope of the discrimination charge.

Johnson v. Cleveland City School District · filed 2009-08-25(f)

A plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC and receive a right-to-sue letter before commencing litigation.6 See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). ... As the district court erred in limiting Johnson’s claims, we reverse and remand for further consideration by the district court of Johnson’s claims of failure to accommodate, retaliatory denial of accommodations, and discriminatory discharge.

Section 2000e-5 requires claims based on conduct before an EEOC charge to be included in the charge or reasonably expected to grow out of it.

Cantu v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2009-09-01

Plaintiffs August 29, 2006 EEOC filing contains absolutely no reference to civil rights violations prior to March 4, 2006. ... His failure to include the earlier events in his EEOC charge “deprives this [C]ourt of subject matter jurisdiction” to consider the events preceding March 4, 2006.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file an EEOC charge before suing; the charge limits which claims the plaintiff may bring in court.

Webb v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, Alcohol Law Enforcement Division · filed 2009-09-11(f)(1)

Before a person may file suit under Title VII, he must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. ... Accordingly, the court dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction all other Title VII claims in plaintiffs complaint.

A Title VII plaintiff must exhaust a discrimination claim through an EEOC charge that gives notice of it.

Hooda v. Brookhaven National Laboratory · filed 2009-09-15(e)(1)

Mr. Hooda did not check the box indicating that he was complaining about “color” discrimination, and nothing in his Charge suggested any intent to set forth a “color” discrimination claim separate from his claims for “race” and “national origin” discrimination. Thus, because Mr. Hooda failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his “color” discrimination claims, those claims must be dismissed.

Section 2000e-5(b) allows the EEOC to investigate a discrimination charge without first showing probable cause or establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2009-11-19(b)

UPS's arguments as to the merits do not prevent the EEOC from investigating these charges. Indeed, at the investigatory stage, the EEOC is not required to show that there is probable cause to believe that discrimination occurred or to produce evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an administrative charge before a Title VII suit; discrimination claims based on grounds omitted from the charge cannot first be raised in court.

Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc. · filed 2010-01-06(e)

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B requires a plaintiff to file an administrative complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”). Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 5. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the same. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). ... However, the MCAD charge only alleges discrimination on the basis of “Disability.” (Lewis Aff. Ex. J.) Plaintiffs claims of discrimination on the basis of factors other than disability were never subjected to administrative scrutiny, and cannot be alleged for the first time in this Court.

Section 2000e-5 limits a Title VII suit to claims within the scope of the EEOC charge; allegations made only in an intake questionnaire do not expand that scope.

Barzanty v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. · filed 2010-01-20(b)

On the other hand, an EEOC Charge Form serves to define the scope of the Commission’s investigation and to notify the defendant of the charges against it. ... A plaintiff cannot be allowed to transfer the allegations mentioned only in the questionnaire to the charge itself.

A Title VII hostile work environment charge can encompass similar harassment by other employees that an EEOC investigation would reasonably uncover.

Miranda v. EMPRESAS DIAZ MASSO, INC. · filed 2010-03-30(e)

Given the nature and legal background of hostile work environment claims, it is reasonable to expect that other acts of sexual harassment against plaintiff by employees of the same company be within the scope of the EEOC investigation of sexual harassment described in plaintiffs administrative charge.

Section 2000e-5(b) allows the EEOC to investigate discrimination uncovered during a reasonable investigation of a charge, but a disability charge does not support an unrelated race investigation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kronos Inc. · filed 2010-09-07(b)

We conclude that the inquiry into potential race discrimination is not a reasonable expansion of Sandy’s charge.

Section 2000e-5(b) permits the EEOC to investigate discrimination uncovered during a reasonable investigation of a charge, but does not permit an unrelated inquiry into race discrimination based on a disability charge.

EEOC v. Kronos Inc · filed 2010-09-07(b)

Once the EEOC begins an investigation, it is not required to ignore facts that support additional claims of discrimination if it uncovers such evidence during the course of a reasonable investigation of the charge. ... We conclude that the inquiry into potential race discrimination is not a reasonable expansion of Sandy’s charge.

Section 2000e-5(b) permits an intake questionnaire to serve as an EEOC charge when it meets the basic charge requirements and shows an intent to begin the administrative process.

Cole v. Mountain View Marketing, Inc. · filed 2010-10-05(b)

First, Cole’s questionnaire meets the basic requirements for an EEOC charge. ... Although Cole did not file a separate written statement specifically asking the EEOC to take action, as was the case in Wilkerson, an overall reading of her submission and her communications with EEOC employees clearly indicate that she intended for the Title VII process to begin.

Section 2000e-5’s EEOC charge requirement limits a Title VII complaint to claims within the scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation of the charge.

Freeman v. Koch Foods of Alabama · filed 2011-03-31(e)(1)

Because of this focus on the EEOC’s investigatory function, the scope of an EEOC charge is determined by the extent of a reasonable investigation by the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(b) allows a signed EEOC intake questionnaire to serve as a charge when it is sworn and contains the required information.

Alexander v. City of Greensboro · filed 2011-07-13(b)

Each Intake Questionnaire was in writing and contained a signed declaration “under the penalty of perjury that the information provided in this questionnaire is true and correct.” ... Therefore, the Intake Questionnaires satisfied, the explicit requirements for a Charge found in the applicable statute and regulations.

An ADA claim may proceed when it is reasonably related to the allegations in the plaintiff’s EEOC charge.

Wamack v. Windsor Park Manor · filed 2011-12-27

Because the allegations in Wamack’s amended complaint are “like or reasonably related” to the allegations in his EEOC charge, Windsor Park’s motion to dismiss Wamack’s claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation will be denied.

A Title VII hostile work environment claim must fall within the scope of the employee’s EEOC charge or a reasonable investigation of it.

Bannister v. Wal-Mart Stores East · filed 2012-02-14(f)(1)

As discussed above, Towles has failed to allege sufficient facts in her EEOC charge to encompass a hostile work environment claim. ... Nor would such a claim be developed by a reasonable investigation by the EEOC. Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff Towles’ hostile work, environment claim.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) permits a Title VII claim that was not named in an EEOC charge when it grows out of the conduct alleged in the charge.

Flower v. City of Chicago · filed 2012-03-22(f)(1)

Because the conduct she alleged as discriminatory in her EEOC charge is the same conduct that gives rise to her claims of constructive discharge, she may pursue the claims in this lawsuit.

A Title VII suit may include claims that a reasonable EEOC investigation of the charge would encompass.

Jenkins v. Baltimore City Fire Department · filed 2012-03-30(e)(1)

A Title VII plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). ... It is thus reasonable to expect that an EEOC investigation into the disparate promotion charges would naturally encompass the investigation and discipline claims.

Section 2000e-5 permits an employee to pursue a retaliation claim related to an earlier EEOC charge without filing a second charge.

Finch v. City of Indianapolis · filed 2012-08-10

The Supreme Court’s decision does not purport to abridge the general rule that an employee may pursue claims sufficiently alike or reasonably related to the allegations made in the EEOC charge even if not specifically mentioned in the charge, the basis of the holding in McKenzie.