In Surgeon v. Midas Hospitality, LLC, 3:22-cv-115-MOC-DSC, 2022 WL 1697409 (W.D.N.C. May 26, 2022), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s harassment/hostile work environment claims, asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
From the decision:
If the claims raised under Title VII in the civil suit “exceed the scope of the EEOC charge and any charges that would naturally have arisen from an investigation thereof, they are procedurally barred.” See Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 509 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedy because he did not allege specific instances of harassment by co-workers in his EEOC charge of discrimination, which was the focal point of the civil action, even though Plaintiff’s administrative charge mentioned specific instances of harassment from supervisors)). Similarly, claims raised under the ADEA in a civil suit that fall outside the scope of the EEOC charge are procedurally barred. See Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 963 (4th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims in her EEOC Charge of Discrimination are limited in scope. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on sex, age, race, and color when making the decision to furlough and terminate Plaintiff. See (Doc. No. 1-4). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating her employment due to Plaintiff making a verbal complaint against co-worker Brian Richardson. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination does not include any mention of “a severe and pervasive hostile work environment” as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id.). Furthermore, although Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination states that she made a singular complaint to Defendant about a manager’s sexist and racist comments towards her, who Plaintiff admits was promptly terminated as a result of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination makes no mention of any other supervisors’ or co-workers’ actions in creating a “severe and pervasive hostile work environment.” (Id.).
Similarly, the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 30 through 36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint related to Plaintiff’s alleged ongoing harassment during her employment for Defendant, were not included in Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination. In fact, there were no similar allegations made or contained within Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination that would have reasonably prompted an investigation of a harassment and a hostile work environment claim.
Plaintiff’s Second Claim for relief exceeds the scope of the allegations within Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination and the EEOC’s reasonable investigation of the same. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Second Claim for relief is dismissed for her failure to exhaust the required administrative remedies.
The court concluded by granting defendant’s motion to strike the factual allegations related to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, since they were – in light of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies – “immaterial” to the complaint’s remaining causes of action.