Carolyn Sapp v. John Potter
413 F. App'x 750
5th Cir.2011Background
- Sapp stopped working for the Postal Service in 2001, alleging depression and panic from a hostile environment.
- She sought accommodation by transferring to a different position; none was available, so she was placed on unpaid leave in 2002.
- By 2006 she remained restricted and re-applied for active status, filing two EEO grievances resolved against her on non-disability accommodations.
- In 2007 two more EEO complaints were filed after a layoff/reduction-in-force; she alleged retaliation and disability/ race/ sex discrimination.
- She filed a district court complaint before completing EEO3/EEO4; the court dismissed those claims for failure to exhaust; also sua sponte dismissed §1981 claim as preempted by Title VII.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed district court decisions, holding exhaustion and scope issues barred the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion required before suit was satisfied | Sapp exhausted EEO remedies via EEO1/EEO2 | Third/fourth EEOs were not exhausted; district court lacked jurisdiction | Exhaustion not satisfied; suit barred |
| Scope of EEOC investigation for Title VII claims | EEO3/EEO4 relate to same motive and should be within scope | Different time and scope; not reasonably expected to grow from earlier investigations | Not within scope; barred |
| Gupta exception applicability to mixed retaliation and discrimination claims | Gupta extends to unexhausted retaliation claims | Gupta applies only to retaliation claims, not discrimination | Gupta exception not applicable |
| Whether §1981 claim is preempted by Title VII for federal employees | §1981 could provide independent relief | Title VII is exclusive remedy for federal employee discrimination | §1981 claim preempted; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion prerequisite and scope of EEOC investigations)
- Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) (scope of investigation can grow out of the charge)
- McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 519 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008) (scope of the EEOC investigation; same motive not enough)
- Gupta v. E. Tex. State Univ., 654 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1981) (Gupta exception for retaliation claims only)
- Scott v. Univ. of Miss., 148 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 1998) (Gupta exception not extended to combined retaliation/discrimination claims)
- Rowe v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1992) (Title VII exclusive remedy for discrimination in federal employment)
- Jackson v. Widnall, 99 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 1996) (Title VII preempts §1981 in federal employment context)
- Hampton v. IRS, 913 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1990) (Title VII exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination)
- Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1986) (Constitutional violations are preempted by Title VII for employment discrimination)