Opinion
Case No. 03-2567-GTV
April 22, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1961, claiming that Defendants subjected her to a hostile working environment, discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, and retaliated against her because she complained of sexual harassment. Defendants have moved for partial judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 17), arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to several of her claims. For the following reasons, the court grants Defendants' motion.
I. STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT
Defendants move to dismiss several of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(c) motion is governed by the same standards as a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will be granted only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts entitling him to relief under his theory of recovery. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). "All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true."Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984). The court must view all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and the pleadings must be liberally construed. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f). The issue in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support his claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Harlow v. Fiztgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants claim that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to several of her Title VII claims. Specifically, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge of Discrimination ("EEOC charge") does not cover claims of discrimination with respect to terms and conditions of employment, other than hostile work environment sexual harassment. Defendants also claim that the EEOC charge does not apply to any claim of employment termination, including constructive discharge. The court agrees.
Before bringing a Title VII action, a plaintiff must exhaust his or her administrative remedies by filing an administrative charge with the EEOC.See Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1411 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d 1398, 1409 (10th Cir. 1996)). The purpose of this prerequisite is to ensure that employers have notice of the charges and to provide employers with an opportunity to voluntarily alter any illegal behavior. See Aguirre v. McCaw RCC Communications. Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1431, 1433 (D. Kan. 1996). After a plaintiff has complied with this administrative requirement, he or she may file suit. "The suit may include allegations of discrimination reasonably related to the allegations listed in the administrative charge. . . ." Aramburu, 112 F.3d at 1411 (citing Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 864 F.2d 680, 682 (10th Cir. 1988)). However, courts will disregard allegations not "reasonably related" to the listed allegations; to allow consideration "'would circumvent the administrative agency's investigatory and conciliatory role as well as deprive the charged party [of] notice of the charge.'" Smithy. Bd. of Pub. Utils., 38 F. Supp.2d 1272, 1284 (D. Kan. 1999) (quoting Harrell v. Spangler, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1215, 1219 (D. Kan. 1997)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[W]here a retaliatory act occurs prior to the filing of a charge and the employee fails to allege the retaliatory act or a retaliation claim in the subsequent charge, the retaliatory act ordinarily will not reasonably relate to the charge." Seymore v. Shawver Sons, Inc., 111 F.3d 794, 799 (10th Cir. 1997). Moreover, when a discrete employment act such as "'termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire'" occurs after the filing of a charge, the employee must file an additional charge relating to the discrete act(s). Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114(2002)).
Plaintiffs EEOC charge contains no allegations regarding sexual discrimination in pay, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment (except hostile work environment sexual harassment). It also contains no allegations regarding termination or constructive discharge. The EEOC charge only contains examples of how Plaintiff was allegedly subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against for making complaints about sexual harassment.
The EEOC charge defines the scope of Plaintiff's claims in this action. Because the EEOC charge is limited to allegations of hostile work environment and retaliation, this case is similarly limited. Plaintiff may not pursue claims for discrimination in the terms and conditions of her employment, other than hostile work environment sexual harassment, and may not pursue claims for wrongful termination or constructive discharge.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 17) is granted.
Copies or notice of this order shall be transmitted to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.