402 F. App'x 454
11th Cir.2010Background
- Lewis, an African-American male, sues his former employer Asplundh Tree Expert Co. for Title VII discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; Lewis settles with Asplundh and dismisses its claims, leaving only the Title VII claim against the City of Gainesville.
- Asplundh had a three-year contract to install utilities with GRU, a City agency; Evans, a GRU inspector, allegedly harassed African-American employees including Lewis and threatened him with harm.
- Lewis reported Evans’ conduct to Asplundh management, was later laid off, and filed an EEOC charge naming Asplundh as the respondent.
- The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter and Lewis filed suit, but the City was not named in the EEOC charge.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the City was not properly named in the EEOC charge, and Lewis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the City be sued under Title VII despite not being named in the EEOC charge? | Lewis contends purposes of Title VII are met because Evans’ identity and City notice allow inclusion. | City argues the precondition requires naming in the EEOC charge unless liberal exceptions apply, which they do not here. | No; unnamed party not included unless purposes of Title VII are met. |
| Did the EEOC investigation reasonably grow out of the charge against Asplundh to include the City? | Investigation could have encompassed the City given notice and related employment relationship. | Investigation did not and could not reasonably grow out of the charge against Asplundh. | No; investigation did not extend to the City. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assoc., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1994) (liberal precondition on unnamed party but must serve Title VII purposes)
- Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents, 708 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983) (investigation may grow out of the EEOC charge)
- Terrell v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 644 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1981) (investigation could grow out of the charge)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc adoption of pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard and scope of summary judgment)