Osman v. Bimbo Bakeries, USA, Inc.
1:14-cv-03281
| D. Colo. | Feb 3, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Kalthun Osman brought a hostile work environment claim against Bimbo Bakeries USA, alleging misconduct by her supervisor Ken Brown (yelling, cursing, bumping/shoving, threats of discharge, unequal terms/conditions).
- Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies by filing a Charge of Discrimination that described those Brown-related acts; defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of other alleged adverse acts not within the exhausted charge.
- Defendant identified 29 discrete occurrences (Docket #44-1) it sought to exclude as outside the scope of exhaustion; Plaintiff responded to each item.
- The court reviewed Tenth Circuit precedent limiting trial evidence to matters within the scope of the EEOC/administrative investigation that reasonably could be expected to follow from the charge.
- The court granted the motion in limine in part and denied it in part, excluding specific acts by non-named supervisors or unrelated incidents, while allowing acts involving Brown or reasonably within the charge’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of specific alleged incidents not named in the charge may be admitted to support hostile work environment claim | Incidents form part of the overall hostile environment and should be admissible as part of a holistic claim | Evidence beyond the acts and actors in the charge exceeds exhaustion and should be excluded | Court admitted incidents involving named supervisor Brown and those reasonably within an investigation; excluded incidents by different supervisors or outside what EEOC could reasonably investigate |
| Whether acts by supervisors other than Ken Brown are within the scope of exhaustion | Plaintiff argued some additional supervisors’ acts relate to the same hostile environment | Defendant argued plaintiff failed to exhaust claims against other supervisors | Court excluded discrete acts by supervisors other than Brown where not reasonably within the administrative investigation (granted in limine) |
| Whether generalized workplace allegations (not tied to Brown) are admissible | Plaintiff allowed some latitude for claims about unequal terms/conditions | Defendant sought to exclude generalized claims not tied to the charge | Court excluded some generalized allegations (e.g., training while pregnant) but allowed others tied to unequal terms/conditions (e.g., denial of bathroom break when pregnant) |
| Scope and practical application of Tenth Circuit exhaustion test | Plaintiff urged a holistic view of hostile environment | Defendant urged narrow application limiting evidence to charge specifics | Court applied Tenth Circuit test: allow what was in the charge and what reasonably could be expected to be uncovered by EEOC investigation; applied this to each disputed item |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Donahoe, 760 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.) (scope of federal claim limited to what administrative investigation could reasonably be expected to follow from the EEOC charge)
- Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir.) (failure to exhaust as to additional individuals bars later reliance on their conduct)