Ahuja v. Bae Systems Information Solutions, Inc.
873 F. Supp. 2d 221
D.D.C.2012Background
- Ahuja, an Asian-Indian female, worked in Detica Inc.'s IT Division beginning in 2002, ultimately as a project manager.
- She alleges six years of superior performance but was denied a director-level promotion and terminated on December 31, 2007, shortly after notifying supervisors of her pregnancy.
- She alleges discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and pregnancy, plus ostracism after a subordinate alleged harassment and after she complained of discrimination.
- In November 2007 she was told she would be terminated as part of a December 31, 2007 reduction in force and was later offered rehiring with reduced pay in January 2008.
- For administrative remedies, she filed an intake questionnaire with the Arlington County Human Rights Commission (ACHRC) on December 4, 2007, submitted a completed but unsigned intake questionnaire on January 2, 2008, and filed an EEOC charge on May 12, 2008 alleging discrimination but not retaliation.
- The EEOC issued a Notice of Charge on May 21, 2008, and a Right to Sue letter on September 2, 2009; she filed this action on November 25, 2009; the court previously granted in part and denied in part Detica’s motion and held in abeyance the retaliation portion to consider exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ahuja exhausted Title VII retaliation claims. | Ahuja argues intake materials may exhaust retaliation claims. | Detica contends only the formal EEOC Charge matters for exhaustion. | No; exhaustion failed because the formal charge did not include retaliation, and intake questionnaire cannot amend the charge. |
| Whether intake questionnaire can expand the scope of the EEOC charge to include retaliation. | Ahuja relies on Holowecki to expand the charge. | Detica argues Park and Barzanty prevent expansion from intake forms to the charge. | Holowecki does not apply to expand substantive scope; intake cannot amend the charge; retaliation not exhausted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exhaustion scope limited to claims like or reasonably related to the charge)
- Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (timeliness of filing, not necessarily substantive scope; cannot automatically treat intake as a charge)
- Barzanty v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 361 F. App'x 411 (3d Cir. 2010) (intake questionnaire cannot be used to amend the charge)
- Francois v. Miami Dade Cnty., Port of Miami, 432 F. App'x 819 (11th Cir. 2011) (intake questionnaire not equivalent to a sworn, timely charge)