In Krstovska v. Staunton Financial, Inc., Case No. 24-12903, 2025 WL 1524456 (E.D.Mich. May 27, 2025), the court, inter alia, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
From the decision:
To pursue a Title VII action, a plaintiff must file a timely charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC or the appropriate state agency, obtain a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, and file a timely complaint in federal court.” Townsend v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 852 F. App’x 1011, 1013 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1); Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2018)). “Only claims that are included in the charge or are ‘reasonably related to or grow out of the factual allegations in the EEOC charge’ may be heard in federal court.” Russ v. Memphis Light Gas & Water Div., 720 F. App’x 229, 234 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 361-62 (6th Cir. 2010)). This exhaustion requirement “serves the dual purpose of giving the employer information concerning the conduct about which the employee complains, as well as affording the EEOC and the employer an opportunity to settle the dispute through conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Younis, 610 F.3d at 361 (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974)).
First, Plaintiff concedes that her EEOC charge “does not include a retaliation claim.” ECF No. 8, PageID.82. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Second, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s EEOC charge does not expressly include a hostile work environment claim. As such, this claim may proceed only if it is reasonably related to or grows out of the factual allegations contained therein. Under Title VII, a workplace is hostile if it is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (cleaned up). The Sixth Circuit has held that “the 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.” Younis, 610 F.3d at 362. Here, Plaintiff’s EEOC charge does not allege facts suggesting the type of ongoing, pervasive conduct necessary to give rise to a hostile work environment claim. It instead alleges only two discrete incidents—her demotion and subsequent termination—which standing alone are insufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim.
The court further rejected plaintiff’s contention that her response to defendant’s position statement, which she submitted to the EEOC during its investigation, satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement, noting that “[t]he expected scope of the EEOC’s investigation is determined by the allegations in the charge itself, rather than those contained in responsive documents.”