|
Davis v. Sodexho Inc.,
157 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. (Tenn.) Oct. 6, 1998)
The Plaintiff, Davis, worked as a cook for Cumberland University
in Lebanon, Tennessee. Sodexho, Inc., managed the food services operation there.
Davis worked full-time during the school year but only part-time in the summer.
In January 1996, Davis received a $30,000 worker’s compensation settlement
from the Defendant for injuries to her hands. When summer break arrived that year,
Davis’ supervisor was unable to schedule Davis for more than several hours
per week because the cafeteria’s hours of operation were cut back by the
school. Davis decided to take another job that would let her work more hours.
She did not return to work with Sodexho that fall, and when Davis’ supervisor
called, she got a notice that Davis’ phone number had been disconnected or
changed. Davis conceded that her phone number changed over the summer. Eventually,
Davis’ supervisor permanently removed her from Sodexho’s payroll.
Davis filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging racial discrimination
and retaliation for having filed the worker’s compensation claim. After getting
a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Davis filed suit in federal district court
alleging age discrimination and retaliation, but not race discrimination. The
district court granted Sodexho summary judgment on the ADEA and retaliation claims.
,With regard to the ADEA claim, the district court said Davis failed to exhaust
her administrative remedies because she failed to include age discrimination in
her EEOC Complaint. Davis appealed.
On review, the Sixth Circuit said that filing charges
with the EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a civil action under
the ADEA. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals noted that courts have expanded the
charge-filing requirement to allow a party’s discrimination claim to include
claims reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination. The court
noted that many EEOC charges are filed by lay complainants, and the courts recognize
that subsequent actions should not be barred by the failure of a complainant to
attach the correct legal conclusion to the EEOC claim, conform to procedural technicalities,
or include the exact wording which might be required in a judicial proceeding.
The court noted this ruling does not mean that plaintiffs are excused from filing
charges on a particular discrimination claim before suing in federal court.
The court went on to note that, when the EEOC investigation
of one charge, in fact, reveals evidence of a different type of discrimination
against a plaintiff, a lawsuit based on the newly understood claim will not be
barred. Similarly, where facts related to the charged claim would prompt the EEOC
to investigate a different, uncharged claim, the plaintiff is not precluded from
bringing suit on that claim.
In this case, however, Davis’ age discrimination
claim neither grew out of the EEOC’s investigation nor would the facts related
to her claims prompt the EEOC to investigate age discrimination. The court rejected
Davis’ argument that she should be able to sue on an uncharged age discrimination
claim simply because she indicated her date of birth and length of employment
in her EEOC charge. The court noted that name and age blanks are on the EEOC complaint
form for informational rather than investigatory reasons. Furthermore, the court
said that the scope of a plaintiff’s complaint does not automatically expand
due to her membership in more than one minority group. For these reasons, the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the Defendant.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
