Morris v. David Lerner Associates
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6115, 680 F.Supp.2d 430, 2010 WL 274361 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Claims not explicitly asserted in an EEOC charge may be pursued in a subsequent federal court action if they are 'reasonably related' to the filed charge, meaning the factual allegations in the charge would give the agency adequate notice to investigate the unasserted claims.
Facts:
- Dora Morris began working for David Lerner Associates (DLA) in 1994 as an assistant to its president, David Lerner.
- In addition to her assistant duties, Morris was a licensed broker but received smaller commissions than her male colleagues.
- During her employment, Lerner allegedly made frequent harassing comments, commented on Morris's anatomy, demanded she "twirl" for him, and propositioned her to stay in the same hotel room on trips.
- In November 2007, Lerner mandated that Morris share 15 percent of her commissions with an unlicensed assistant, whereas male brokers were required to share only one percent.
- On November 20, 2007, Morris complained to Lerner, stating that she was being treated differently than the male brokers.
- Lerner responded by complimenting her as a "good Mommy," suggested she take the upcoming holiday weekend to think, and said they would discuss it the following Monday.
- Two days later, DLA’s Human Resources Vice President informed Morris by phone that Lerner had “accepted her resignation.”
- In a follow-up call two days after that, the HR Vice President told Morris that her job had been “eliminated.”
Procedural Posture:
- Dora Morris filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 10, 2008.
- The EEOC issued Morris a Right to Sue Letter on March 13, 2009.
- Morris filed a complaint against David Lerner Associates (DLA) and David Lerner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 1, 2009.
- Morris later voluntarily withdrew several of her initial claims against the parties.
- Defendants DLA and Lerner filed a motion to partially dismiss the complaint, arguing that Morris failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee fail to exhaust her administrative remedies for hostile work environment and retaliation claims when she does not check the corresponding boxes on an EEOC form, but the factual narrative attached to the form describes events that would reasonably lead to an investigation of such claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph F. Bianco
No. An employee's claims for hostile work environment and retaliation are not barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the factual allegations in the EEOC charge itself gave the agency adequate notice to investigate those claims, even if the corresponding boxes on the form were not checked. The court found that Morris’s hostile work environment claim was reasonably related to her EEOC charge because the charge described repeated unwelcome personal comments about her appearance and dress, which was sufficient to put the EEOC on notice. Similarly, her retaliation claim was reasonably related because the EEOC charge described the close temporal proximity between her complaint about disparate treatment and her subsequent termination, which would reasonably be expected to trigger an investigation into a retaliatory motive. Finally, under the pleading standard of Swierkiewicz, which remains vital after Twombly and Iqbal, Morris’s complaint plausibly alleged facts sufficient to give fair notice of both a hostile work environment and a retaliatory termination, and therefore survives a motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of the 'reasonably related' doctrine in administrative exhaustion for Title VII claims. It emphasizes that courts will look to the substance of the factual allegations in an EEOC charge, rather than mere technicalities like unchecked boxes, to determine the proper scope of a subsequent lawsuit. The decision also reinforces that the plausible pleading standard established by Twombly and Iqbal does not require a plaintiff to plead a full prima facie case of discrimination at the motion to dismiss stage. This provides plaintiffs with more latitude in framing their initial complaints, focusing on factual plausibility rather than formulaic recitation of legal elements.
