In Gildyard v. Children’s Network of Southwest Florida, LLC, Case No.: 2:24-cv-702-SPC-KCD, 2025 WL 1093331 (M.D.Fla. April 10, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim, on the ground that plaintiff failed to “administratively exhaust” that claim at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s amended EEOC charge also failed to exhaust his race-based hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff’s charge almost entirely focuses on the promotion of other employees allegedly due to his age and race. (Doc. 9-1). These allegations do not exhaust his hostile work environment claim. Cotton v. G.S. Dev., 390 F. App’x 875, 877 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming because the plaintiff “failed to mention his hostile work environment claim and only discussed his failure to promote and wrongful demotion and termination claims” in his EEOC charge); Bonner v. Sarasota Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. 8:19-CV-2740-T-33AEP, 2020 WL 495169, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2020) (“Because the hostile work environment theory does not depend on tangible employment actions, a promotion denial does not form the basis of a sexual harassment claim premised on hostile work environment.”).
Only one short section of his charge addresses “workplace hostility.” (Doc. 9-1 at 2). But that section says nothing about race. Rather, he states that Rossi “called [him] lazy, a piece of shit and an old man.” (Id.). This reference to a comment about Plaintiff’s age—not race—did not exhaust Plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims. Litman, 703 F. App’x at 771–72 (finding a plaintiff’s “failure to mention his hostile work environment claim and the corresponding factual allegations would otherwise preclude the EEOC from performing its role in obtaining voluntary compliance and promoting conciliation efforts on that claim”); Ramon v. AT & T Broadband, 195 F. App’x 860, 866 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming because the plaintiff “pointed to no allegation in her EEOC charge that reasonably points to the kind of pervasive and oppressive conditions that would allow us to conclude that she intended to have the EEOC investigate the workplace for a hostile work environment”).
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal was warranted.