In Wilson v. Ciocca Muncy Ho Inc., No. 4:23-CV-00765, 2023 WL 6449425 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 3, 2023), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff administratively exhausted certain claims, but not others, in her charge filed at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In sum, plaintiff alleges that she experienced sex discrimination (including sexual harassment), racial harassment, and retaliation.
In finding that plaintiff administratively exhausted her sex discrimination and hostile work environment claims, the court explained:
The cross-filed charge of discrimination raises the issue of sex discrimination several times. Wilson checked the box alleging sex discrimination, referenced specific incidents of sexual harassment in her narrative, and concluded that she had “been discriminated and retaliated [against] due to her sex.” These averments put the Defendant and the administrative agencies on notice regarding these allegations. Ciocca Honda’s request to entirely dismiss the Title VII and PHRA sex discrimination claims is therefore denied. …
The administrative complaint suggests that Wilson faced a hostile work environment despite her failure to check the continuing action box. It is “entirely possible” that she did not check this box because she completed this form after quitting her job at the dealership. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Wilson listed the entire course of her employment when asked when the discrimination took place. Although the narrative description does not include language that is interchangeable with the phrase “hostile work environment,” it does raise an inference of ongoing issues. Finally, the charge noted that she had made complaints, but no corrective actions were ever taken. By including these allegations, the hostile work environment claim “fairly [falls] within the scope of the prior complaint.” Therefore, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claims is also denied.
It dismissed, however, plaintiff’s quid pro quo sexual harassment claims, reasoning that “simply checking a box on th[e EEOC] form is insufficient to properly exhaust a claim” and that “[m]issing from the narrative description is any indication that unwelcome sexual conduct was ‘used as the basis for employment decisions’ affecting” plaintiff.