In Weaver v. Shasta Servs., LLC, No. 2:25-CV-00910-MJH, 2025 WL 2977874 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
Plaintiff brings age discrimination claims against Defendant under the ADEA and PHRA. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies as to these claims. Plaintiff argues that his age discrimination claims are properly within the scope of his EEOC Charge.
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he is a member of the protected class, i.e., he is at least 40 years old; (2) he is qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances surrounding the adverse action “could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.” Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 426 (3d Cir. 2013).
In his EEOC Charge, Plaintiff stated:I believe the Respondent discharged me because of my age, 71, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). At least two (2) other individuals much younger than me knew of and were responsible for the issues which resulted in my discharge prior to my being hired and during my employment but, they were not disciplined or discharged. Their names are Mark Whalen and Shawn Mienke.
Although Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge is not specific, it is clear from the contents of the EEOC Charge that Plaintiff intended to bring a discrimination claim against Defendant under the ADEA. The administrative remedy exhaustion requirement does not mandate that a Plaintiff include every detail of the alleged wrongs against them to satisfy the requirement, just enough that the Defendant is notified of the charges against it.
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court concluded that plaintiff’s EEOC Charge “clearly puts the Defendant on notice of an ADEA discrimination claim” and that, therefore, plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies as to his age discrimination claims against Defendant.