Watson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
690 F. App'x 885
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stephanie Watson, a 54-year-old African-American woman, was hired as an ODRC parole officer in Aug. 2010 and terminated during her probationary period on Oct. 6, 2010 for refusing a required firearms training.
- After termination Watson applied to nearly 200 ODRC positions; this suit challenges ODRC’s failure to hire her for 23 specific jobs (teaching, assistant principal, educational admin) across multiple years.
- Watson filed three EEOC charges spanning 2011–2015; she received right-to-sue letters and sued in district court asserting race- and sex-based discrimination and retaliation for the termination and for failure-to-hire decisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ODRC, rejecting the termination claim (no protected activity and non-similarly situated comparators) and dismissing or barring the 23 failure-to-hire claims on exhaustion, timeliness, and merits (one claim reached merits and failed for lack of pretext).
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reconciled its precedents (Morgan and Weigel) to hold that discrete adverse acts require timely EEOC exhaustion, that the EEOC “expected scope of investigation” (ESOI) test can preserve uncharged claims in narrow circumstances, and that successive EEOC charges cut off prior ESOI protections—applying that framework to affirm the district court on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson preserved 23 failure-to-hire claims via EEOC filings/ESOI test | Watson: initial EEOC charge (and the ESOI test) covers later failure-to-hire claims; subsequent charges not required | ODRC: discrete acts require separate exhaustion; later charges break ESOI coverage and claims outside lookback are unexhausted | Court: ESOI test limited; successive charges cut off prior ESOI; most claims unpreserved and dismissal affirmed |
| Timeliness/equitable tolling for claims dismissed by stipulation (jobs 9a, 9b, 17) | Watson: dismissal was unintended; equitable tolling should apply to reinstate claims | ODRC: plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and failed to re-file within 90 days; no basis for tolling | Court: no abuse of discretion in denying equitable tolling; claims time-barred |
| Merits — whether Job 21 non-selection showed discrimination or pretext | Watson: hiring process subjective and could mask discrimination; she was more qualified | ODRC: selected candidate had superior, relevant experience; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Court: Watson abandoned her appeal on Job 21; on merits district court found ODRC’s reason legitimate and no pretext |
| Standard for reviewing summary judgment and factual disputes | Watson: district court improperly weighed evidence and failed to construe facts in her favor | ODRC: district court properly applied summary judgment standard and considered exhaustion/timeliness | Court: review de novo; district court applied correct standards and evidence did not create genuine issue on preserved merits claim(s) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weigel v. Baptist Hosp., 302 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 2002) (adopts the “expected scope of investigation” test for relating uncharged claims to an EEOC charge)
- Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (each discrete unlawful employment practice is a separate act requiring a timely EEOC filing)
- Domingo v. Kowalski, 810 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard and de novo review reminder)
- Mezo v. Holder, 615 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2010) (equitable tolling factors include diligence, prejudice, and reasonableness)
- Jackson v. United States, 751 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2014) (appellate review standard for equitable tolling is abuse of discretion)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (stare decisis and adherence to precedent emphasized)