Michael Simko v. United States Steel Corp
992 F.3d 198
| 3rd Cir. | 2021Background
- Simko, a U.S. Steel employee with a hearing impairment, filed a timely EEOC charge on May 24, 2013 alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate after being passed over for a Spellman position.
- While that charge was pending, Simko was discharged, reinstated under a last‑chance agreement, and discharged again on August 19, 2014 (the termination at issue in the federal suit).
- In November 2014 Simko sent an undated handwritten letter to the EEOC alleging he had been terminated in retaliation for filing the 2013 charge; the EEOC did not act on that correspondence until about a year later.
- After the EEOC contacted him, Simko’s counsel filed an amended EEOC charge on January 22, 2016 (retaliation box checked), which was 521 days after the August 2014 discharge; the EEOC later found reasonable cause and issued a right‑to‑sue letter.
- Simko sued in federal court (only alleging retaliation). The District Court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Simko never filed a timely EEOC retaliation charge; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simko’s Nov. 2014 handwritten correspondence itself constituted a timely EEOC charge | Simko: the correspondence contained the elements of a charge and was timely (within 300 days of the discharge) | U.S. Steel: Simko never treated the letter as a charge below; issue not preserved | Not reached on the merits — court declined review because the argument was forfeited for failing to raise it in the district court |
| Whether equitable tolling should excuse Simko’s late amended charge because of EEOC delay | Simko/EEOC: EEOC’s failure to act promptly warrants tolling | U.S. Steel: no tolling; claim untimely | Not considered on appeal — EEOC raised it in amicus brief only; appellate court refused to expand the issues raised by the parties |
| Whether the retaliation claim was exhausted because it was encompassed within the original 2013 EEOC charge (two‑prong Waiters inquiry) | Simko/EEOC: the retaliation claim arose from and related to the pending disability charge, so no separate timely charge was required | U.S. Steel: the retaliation claim is factually and temporally distinct and required a timely, separate charge | Held for U.S. Steel: the retaliation claim did not fall within the scope of the original charge or the investigation that reasonably would have arisen from it; exhaustion lacking and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the EEOC’s later actual investigation of retaliation cures exhaustion even if the original charge would not have reasonably led to that investigation | Simko/EEOC: the EEOC ultimately investigated and attempted conciliation, so purposes of exhaustion were satisfied | U.S. Steel: the objective reasonable‑scope test controls; an after‑the‑fact investigation does not automatically retroactively exhaust untimely claims | Held for U.S. Steel: actual post‑charge EEOC investigation does not automatically satisfy exhaustion; inquiry is objective and focuses on what a reasonable investigation of the original charge would have encompassed |
Key Cases Cited
- Waiters v. Parsons, 729 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1984) (two‑prong test for when post‑charge claims relate back to a prior EEOC complaint or investigation)
- Hicks v. ABT Assocs., Inc., 572 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1978) (scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation, and limits on treating the actual investigation as the outer limit)
- Robinson v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 1018 (3d Cir. 1997) (applying the fact‑specific exhaustion inquiry to post‑charge retaliation claims)
- Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1976) (purpose of EEOC pre‑suit procedures and relation‑back principles)
- Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) (refusing to treat distinct discrimination claims as encompassed by an earlier charge)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (charge‑filing deadline is a processing rule subject to waiver, estoppel, equitable tolling)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (pre‑suit filing requirements promote prompt notice and resolution and must be adhered to)