ROSS v. ED NAPLETON HONDA, INC.

2 Citing cases

  1. Rosa v. City of Chi.

    No. 12 C 9648 (N.D. Ill. May. 1, 2014)

    Thus, the harassment claim is outside the scope of the EEOC charge. See Ross v. Ed Napleton Honda, Inc., No. 04 C 4935, 2005 WL 38742, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2005) (holding that harassment claim was outside the scope of a failure-to-accommodate EEOC Charge); cf. Green v. Nat'l Steel Corp., 197 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[A] failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ADA."). Failure to Accommodate

  2. McQueen v. City of Chicago

    803 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D. Ill. 2011)   Cited 49 times
    Holding plaintiff failed to exhaust claim challenging "policy of not promoting individuals with a recent history of discipline," where EEOC charge identified different policy, specifically, "policy of granting discretion to [supervisors] without sufficient oversight from human resources"; citing cases holding "[w]here an administrative charge fails to identify or describe the neutral employment practice later alleged to disproportionally affect a protected group, that policy cannot support a disparate impact claim"

    The claims are not alike or reasonably related unless there is a factual relationship between them. This means that the EEOC charge and the complaint must, at minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals.”); see also Ross v. Ed Napleton Honda, Inc., 2005 WL 38742, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 7, 2005) (same for IDHR charge). McQueen filed an administrative charge with the EEOC, and the other Plaintiffs filed with the IDHR. (The agencies have a work sharing arrangement providing that a charge filed with one is deemed cross-filed with the other.