790 F.Supp.3d 744
W.D. Wis.2025Background
- Katie Sagaitis worked at West Bend Insurance Company for nearly 20 years, resigning as a senior product manager in 2020.
- Sagaitis alleges sex discrimination, including failure to promote, unequal pay, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and requests declaratory judgment.
- She filed administrative charges in 2020 with the EEOC and Wisconsin's Equal Rights Division (ERD), partially withdrawing some claims during proceedings.
- After the ERD found probable cause for most claims but not unequal pay, Sagaitis withdrew her remaining administrative charges, obtained an EEOC right-to-sue letter, and filed this lawsuit.
- West Bend moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, time-bar on certain claims, and that declaratory judgment is not a stand-alone claim.
- The court decided the motion to dismiss after briefing and receipt of Sagaitis's right-to-sue letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Sagaitis exhaust administrative remedies? | She completed requirements; later received right-to-sue letter. | Lawsuit was filed before she received right-to-sue letter. | Deficiency cured by belated right-to-sue letter; not dismissed. |
| Effect of withdrawing claims during admin process | Title VII does not require appeal or continued admin litigation. | Withdrew some claims post-adverse agency decision; so not exhausted. | No violation, as investigation occurred; withdrawal post-investigation is allowable. |
| Timeliness of Equal Pay Act claim | (No argument—did not respond) | Claims are untimely: last possible date May 2020. | Equal Pay Act claims dismissed as untimely. |
| Declaratory Judgment as claim | Sought declaratory relief for Title VII violations. | Declaratory judgment is a remedy, not a cause of action. | No "claim" to dismiss; motion denied as unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Reynolds v. Tangherlini, 737 F.3d 1093 (Title VII exhaustion requirements in Seventh Circuit)
- Hill v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1142 (consequences of failing Title VII exhaustion)
- Salas v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 493 F.3d 913 (burden of pleading exhaustion is on defendant)
- Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463 (right-to-sue letter cures earlier complaint deficiency)
- Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249 (timing and effect of right-to-sue letter receipt in Title VII)
- Zugay v. Progressive Care, 180 F.3d 901 (withdrawing an admin charge after agency investigation meets exhaustion)
- EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107 (Title VII procedures not augmented by state deadlines)
- O’Gorman v. City of Chicago, 777 F.3d 885 (statute of limitations may justify dismissal at pleading stage)
- Reiter v. Illinois Nat. Cas. Co., 213 F.2d 946 (declaratory judgments are remedies, not claims)