Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-213 (MTT).
October 27, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 7). The Defendant argues the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he brought this action alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, but only alleged age and national origin discrimination in his charge of discrimination.
The Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion despite the Court's Order to Respond. (Doc. 9).
"Prior to filing a Title VII action, however, a plaintiff first must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC." Gregory v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 355 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004). "[A] plaintiff's judicial complaint is limited by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination." Id. at 1280 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Here, the Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on the basis of age and national origin discrimination, and filed this action on the basis of race discrimination. The charge stated the Plaintiff was informed of his termination by a Hispanic male, and he was discriminated against because he is non-Hispanic. Neither the charge nor the Complaint mentions the Plaintiff's race. Thus, the Complaint for race discrimination cannot reasonably be expected to grow out of his charge of age and national origin discrimination.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Motion is GRANTED.