In Alcodray v. Michigan Department of Corrections & Sherman Campbell, No. 25-12122, 2026 WL 1984108 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
From the decision:
Alcodray’s hostile work environment claim was not adequately presented in the EEOC complaint either. To establish a claim of hostile work environment, “a plaintiff must present evidence of harassment that ‘unreasonably interfer[es] with [his] work performance and creat[es] an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.’ ” Younis, 610 F.3d at 362 (quoting Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655, 678 (6th Cir. 2008)). A hostile work environment claim may fail, however, when a plaintiff does not “allege[ ] any frequent, long-lasting, and severe incidents that could form the basis of a hostile work environment claim.” Mustafa v. Ford Motor Co., 691 F. Supp. 3d 796, 802 (E.D. Mich. 2023); see also Grays v. Mayorkas, No. 21-10526, 2021 WL 3207047, at *11 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 2021) (finding that explicitly racial comments, requirements to get permission to use bathroom, and offensive, aggressive touching over several years were sufficient to state a claim).
Alcodray’s EEOC charge simply described two instances of discrimination when he applied for a storekeeper position at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, once when applying for a similar position at the Jackson facility, and once when applying for a similar position at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility. But allegations of discrete acts of discrimination are not enough to put the EEOC on notice of a hostile work environment claim. See Hayes v. Clariant Plastics & Coatings USA, Inc., 144 F.4th 850, 865 (6th Cir. 2025) (“ ‘[T]he inclusion in an EEOC charge of a discrete act or acts, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a hostile-work-environment claim for purposes of exhaustion.’ … That is because a hostile work environment claim cannot be ‘reasonably expected to grow out of the charge’ alleging only discrete acts of discrimination.” (citations omitted)); Harrison v. Michigan Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-12034, 2023 WL 4237580, at *15 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2023) (dismissing hostile work environment claim “[b]ecause Plaintiffs’ 2021 EEOC Charges address discrete acts and did not include any content that could reasonably be expected to prompt the EEOC to investigate a hostile work environment claim”).
The court concluded that, since plaintiff’s EEOC charge “fell short of leading the EEOC to believe [he] was asserting a hostile work environment claim, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedy.”