[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13505

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-03467-MHH

TUESDAY RODRIGUEZ, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(June 1, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-13505 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Tuesday Rodriguez appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in her suit alleging hostile 

work environment due to her national origin, in violation of Title VII. See 42 

U.S.C. §§ 20003-2, 2000e-16(c) (prohibiting federal agencies from discriminating 

against employees based on their national origin). Rodriguez, a Hispanic woman, 

contends the district court erred by determining she had not presented the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with claims of a supervisor 

mocking her accent. She admits mocking was not included in her complaint to the 

EEOC, but contends a reference to mocking during an agency interview was 

sufficient to administratively exhaust the claim. 

Before filing a Title VII action in district court, a plaintiff must file a charge 

of discrimination with the EEOC. Gregory v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 355 F.3d 

1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004). Courts are “extremely reluctant” to bar Title VII 

claims based on procedural technicalities and will allow judicial claims that 

“amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus” the EEOC complaint allegations. Id.

(quotations omitted). Still, “[a] plaintiff’s judicial complaint is limited by the 

scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of 

the charge of discrimination.” Id. at 1280 (quotations omitted). To determine 

whether a complaint falls within this scope, we ask whether the complaint is “like 

or related to, or grew out of, the allegations contained in her EEOC charge.” Id. 

Case: 14-13505 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Plaintiffs may not raise “[a]llegations of new acts of discrimination” in the judicial 

proceedings. Wu v. Thomas, 863 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1989) (quotations 

omitted). 

The district court did not err1 in granting summary judgment because 

Rodriguez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with regard to her hostile 

work environment charge based on allegations of mocking. Her judicial complaint 

of mocking was not “like or related to,” nor does it appear to have grown out of, 

the acts identified in her EEOC charge. Rodriguez’s EEOC charge of a hostile 

work environment was based on other specific, discrete events including 

assignment of duties, performance evaluations, and compensation. In all of her 

communications with the EEOC investigator, Rodriguez made one reference to 

mocking during an extensive phone interview, but this reference did not give 

details of the mocking or allege that it was “constant” or “vicious” in the way it 

was alleged in the district court. Moreover, her reference to mocking was not 

presented as a new instance of harassment; rather, she provided it as an explanation 

for why she believed that her actual charges of discrimination—assignment of 

duties, performance reviews, and compensation, among others—were motivated by 

national origin discrimination. Finally, the exhaustion requirement exists in part to 

ensure that the EEOC has notice and the first opportunity to investigate and 

 1

 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Breda v. Wolf 

Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886, 888 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Case: 14-13505 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

mediate all employment discrimination claims, Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1279, and 

Rodriguez’s phone interview reference to mocking did not afford the EEOC this 

opportunity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13505 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 4 of 4