In Ellis-Yancey v. Midwest Block & Brick/Quikrete Company, No. 4:25-CV-00822-JMB, 2026 WL 113595 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2026), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since they were not administratively exhausted at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s claims in her complaint must be like or reasonably related to the claims outlined in her administrative charge of discrimination or they are subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g., Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2004). Although “an EEOC complaint need not specifically articulate the precise claim,…[t]he EEOC charge must provide information that would give the employer notice of the subject matter of the charge and identify generally the basis for a claim.” Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894, 899 (8th Cir. 2024) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination in his or her complaint “may be as broad as the scope of the EEOC investigation which reasonably could be expected to result from the administrative charge.”
Having reviewed the complaint, the charge of discrimination, and the notice of right to sue from the EEOC, the Court determines that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against Defendant for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The Court will issue service on Defendant as to these claims.
Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title VII for employment discrimination based on race, color, and gender, however, will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination listed “age” as the only basis of discrimination. Doc. 10 at 1. The narrative portion of the charge also cites only to her age as the reason she believes she was not granted her transfer. Id. at 1-2 (“I believe that I have been discriminated against due to the belief I would be retiring in the near future in violation of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967.”). In neither her charge nor her complaint does Plaintiff identify her race, color, or gender. Because Plaintiff has not administratively exhausted any claims of employment discrimination based on race, color, or gender, the Court will dismiss these claims.
This decision thus illustrates the importance of asserting, in an EEOC Charge, all potential bases for discrimination under the statutes enforced by that agency, at the risk of subsequent dismissal.