981 F. Supp. 2d 167
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiff Salvatore Agosta sues the County, DPW, Spence, Beck, Calvacca, Morales and Pana for Title VII, ADA and New York Executive Law claims based on hostile work environment, disability discrimination and retaliation.
- Plaintiff alleges harassment by Pana, Morales, Spence and Beck at the DPW, including sexual comments, property vandalism, overtime denial and being forced to perform others’ work.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC/NYSDHR Charge on August 11, 2011 alleging sex and sexual orientation discrimination; disability discrimination was not alleged in the charge.
- EEOC right-to-sue notice issued July 10, 2012; Plaintiff commenced suit October 5, 2012 asserting ADA and other claims.
- County Defendants move to dismiss ADA claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing disability discrimination was not in the EEOC charge and not reasonably related.
- Court grants motion to dismiss ADA claims for failure to exhaust, stating the ADA claims are not reasonably related to the EEOC charge and cannot be pursued in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA claims were exhausted | Agosta's disability claims were reasonably related to the EEOC/NYSDHR proceedings. | ADA claims were not in the EEOC charge and not reasonably related; thus unexhausted. | ADA claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether evidence outside the pleadings can establish exhaustion | Two NYSDHR witness statements show disability awareness; could have alerted agencies. | Extraneous evidence cannot be considered on a 12(b)(6) motion to show exhaustion. | Evidence outside the complaint cannot save exhaustion; claims still barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., 163 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 1998) (exhaustion requires claims to be reasonably related to EEOC charge)
- Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 458 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006) (scope of EEOC investigation governs related claims)
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (three situations for reasonable relation to EEOC charge)
- Cavallaro v. Corning Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 334 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (EEOC charge must hint at broader discrimination for related claims)
- Young v. Lord & Taylor, LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (disability claim not exhausted where charge lacks such basis)
- Sussle v. Sirina Prot. Sys. Corp., 269 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (only the EEOC charge, not related filings, affects exhaustion)
- Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 2d 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (charge matters for conciliation and exhaustion)