### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 2 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1297 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00083 -CV -5 FREDDY GREEN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us ELIXIR INDUSTRIES, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (A pr il 29, 200 5) Befo re BARKETT, HILL andFARRIS , Cir cu it Ju dg es . * FA RRIS , Circuit Judge: Inthi s a ppe al w e de ci de w he the r a cl ai m f or hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t2

dis cr im inatio n w as a de qua te ly state d to the E E O C and m et the sum m ar y j udgm en t standard. I t wa s, and it did. W e theref ore re verse and rem and for further pr oc ee din gs. BACKGRO UND Pl ai nti ff F re ddy G re enis a bla ck

m al e w ho w as e m

plo y ed by D ef en dant E lix ir I ndus tr ie s, I nc . in 1995 in its se co nd s hif t pa int li ne a t E lix ir ’ s G eo rg ia E xtr usi on D ivi sio n inD ougl as , G eo rg ia . E lix ir pr oduc es e xtr

ude d and m anuf ac tur ed a lum inu m

part s f or m anuf ac tur ed hou sin g and r ec re at ion al ve hic le in du st ry supp li es . Elix ir’s e m

pl oyees wo rkon two sh ift s o f va ry in g h ou rs . G re en ’ s pr im ar

y dut ie s w he n he w as f

ir st h ir ed w er e to h an g m et al that w as to be painted. A fter 90 day s, G reen w as transfer red at his request to the second shi ft fa br ic at ionde partm en t. H is d uti es the n in cl ude d op er at ing am ite r saw , r unni ng pr es se s and dri lls , and e nsur ing the pr ope r pr ep ar at ionof dy es . O n Augus t 7, 2000 , G reen w as transfer red to the first shift fabric ation departm ent as part of a re duc tio n inf

or ce w hic h te rm inate d a lm ost a ll se co nd s hif

t e m plo y ee s. Ine ac h j ob c la ssi fi catio n ( inc lud ing the pa int de partm en t and f

ab ri catio n de partm en t) an e m

plo y ee w oul d r ec ei ve pay r ai se s a t thr ee -m onth, nin e- m onth, an d on e- y ear int er

va ls. A ft er

one y ear, a n e m

plo y ee w as onl y

e lig ibl e fo r m er itba se d pay r ai se s, ba se d onasup er

vis or ’ s r ec om

m en da tio n, on the a nni ve rs ar y of3

th e st artof e m

pl oym en t. T houg h ape rs on i n G re en ’ s po sit ionnor m al ly r ea ch ed the top w ag e fo r his cl as sif ic at iona ft er

one y ear of

e m plo ym en t, G re endid

not . H e co m

pla ine d to his superviso r, Stanley

W ilcox, a black m ale, that he wa s rece iving only $8.37 per hour , whil e w hit e an d H isp an ic e m plo y ee s w er e re ce ivi ng $ 9. 01 p er hour. W ilc ox did not r es pond to the c om

pla int but a ft er G re enc om

pla ine d to aw hit e supe rv iso r his wage w as increased to $9.01. Gr een never r eceived any m erit increa ses thereaf ter. G re ena lle ge s th at , thr ough out his e m plo ym en t a t E lix ir , he w as sub j ec te d to re pe at ed and i nte nse a ct s of

r ac ia lly m oti va te d hara ssm en t. A t so m e tim e in 1 998, a hangm an ’ s no ose w as hun g one qui pm en t i n th e fa br ic at ionde partm en t and rem ai ne d t he re fo r ap pr ox im at el y a week . On Apr il 19 , 20 00 , Cla y Hut ch in so n, a w hit e em plo y ee , m ad e a noos e an d di spl ay ed it , a lle ge dly

in ana tte m

pt t o intim idate W ilcox. H utchins on was allegedly angry because W ilcox was involved rom antically

in an interracia l relationship with a w om an in whom Hutchinson was interested. S everal E lixir em ploy ees expressed disdain for interracia l re la tio nshi ps, and C harl es H utc hin son, Cl ay ’ s br oth er , is al le ge d to have tol d G re enthat r ac e m ixi ng i s “ ag ai nst the Bi ble . ” G re en ’ s c om m on l awspo use is white.4

O n M ay 26, 200 0, G re ena lle ge s th at athi rd noo se appe ar ed . T his noo se w as m ad e by

Ja ck D ixo n, aw hit e em

plo y ee a nd the ne phe wof the pr oduc tio n m an ag er a t E lix ir , Ja ce l B utl er . Mr . D ixo n a lle ge dly m ad e the noo se be ca

use he wa s upset at the pos sibili ty that the Confederate battle em blem would be rem oved fr om the G eo rg iastate f

la g. G re enobs er

ve d D ixo n m ak e the noo se a nd h eard him say , “ H oww oul d y ’ al l l ike it if w e se nt a ll of

y ’ al l ba ck

to A fr ic a?” a nd “ If

y ’ al l take the flag down, all of y ’ all need to be sent back to Afr ica. ” G reen c om plained ab out thi s in ci de nt t o W ilc ox, w ho s ta te d th at he c oul d do nothin g a

bout it . O n anothe r oc ca sio n, G re enobs er ve d anum

be r of w hit e em plo y ee s lo oki ng at ac om put er sc re enthat di spl ay ed

aK u K lux K lan w eb sit e an d ov er he ar d th es e em plo y ee s di sc uss ing that a num be r of E lix ir e m plo y ee s w er e m em

be rs of vari ous ch ap te rs of

the KKK . G re enc om

pla ine d a bout thi s in ci de nt t o W ilc ox and t o St ev e Park s, aw hit e m an ag em en t l ev el e m plo y ee , w ho s ta te d th at

he w oul d lo ok into th e m atter. A ccording to Gree n, nothing occurre d thereafte r. At a m eeting of second shi ft w orkers (alm ost all of whom we re black), productio n m anager Jac el Butler is alleged to have stated, “ I can take a m onkey an d gi ve him

abananato pushabutton , ” an d “ If y ’ al l do n’ t w an t t o w ork, I c ango to Cozy Corner and get drun ks to replace y ou.” G reen testified that Cozy Corner is a loc al bla ck

c lub . A ft er

thi s m ee tin g, asig n w as pla ce d ina n of fi ce w ind ow5

vi si bl e to all em

pl oyees t ha t s ta te d, “ Pl eas e d on ’t feedth e m on ke y s.” Ac cording to th e testim ony of D wight De nnis, a form er black e m ploy ee at Elixir w ho also filed a lawsuit against Elixir for hostile work e nvironm ent race discrim ination at roughly the sam e tim e as this action, production m anager Butler iss ue d ar ule that no f

am ily m em be rs w oul d be a llo w ed

ins ide the plant. D en nis te sti fi ed that the r ule w as not

e nf or ce d inthe f

ir st s hif t, w hic h w as c om

pose d of m ost ly w hit e em plo y ee s. O n th e se co nd s hif t, how ev er , the r

ule w as r igo ro usl y en fo rced . Ther e is also evidence that at several points in his em ploym ent, G reen w as discipli ned for attendance policy violatio ns. O n three occasions, he w as su sp en de d fo r th ree d ay s wi th ou t p ay forfai li ng to rep or t fo r wor k. During the we ek of Christm as, E lixir often closed the plant and operated w ithonl y aske le tonc re w . E m

plo y ee s w er e giv enthe c hoi ce to w ork w iththe ske le tonc re wif

the y w ish ed . I n 20 00, the plant c los ed f ro m D ec em be r 26- 29, and Gr een did not work on th ose day s. D uring that tim e, Gr een and his wife we re shop ping in a local store and w ere seen by production m anager Butler . Gr een te sti fi ed that w he n B utl er

sawhim a nd h is w if

e tog ethe r, Bu tle r too k “ his bug gy an d pu sh[ ed ] [ it] ba ck

down th e ai sle a nd [ sto od] the re a nd s tare [d ] a t us , j ust lo ok in g o ut li ke he was l os in g h is m in d.”6

O n January

2, 200 1, G re enr et

ur ne d to w ork. A ft er

w orkin g f

or six hours , he wa s approached by

Butler, who told him

that he wa s fired. Butler’ s reason wa s that Gre en had volu nteered to w ork from De cem ber 26-28 with the skeleton crew an d ha d f ai le d to c al l i n to state that he w oul d no t c om e. G re enc ont en ds tha t hi s na m e w as not

pos te d to w ork ontho se day s, that he ne ve r vol unt ee re d, a nd tha t no on e le t h im

kn ow t ha t h e was ex pe ct edto workon th os e d ay s. O n M ar ch28, 200 1, G re enf ile d pr o se ac harg e of

dis cr im inatio n w iththe EEOC. Green ch eck edth e b ox st at in g t ha t t he di sc riminat io n a ll eg edwas ra ci al . Inthe box w he re G re enw as r equir ed to state the da te s of

the dis cr im inatio n, Gr een w rote “ January

2, 2001” as the “ earliest” and “ latest” dates. In the fac tual part ic ulars se ct ion , G re enstate d: I. I was e m

pl oyed fro m

Marc h 7 , 19 95 un ti l my

di sc ha rg e Ja nu ary 2, 2 00 1. I w as term inated for violation of the attendance policy , but I have no w ritten w ar nin gs f or a tte ndanc e. Whit e m al es that have w ri tte n w ar nin gs and h av e co m m itt ed f urthe r vio la tio ns w er e not te rm inate d. II . Mana ge m en t st at ed

I w as dis ch ar ge d be ca

use of vio la tio n of

the a t t e n d a n c e p o l i c y. III . I believe that I have been discrim inated against because of m y rac e (b la ck ) in v iol at ionof

T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4, a s am en de d. T he E E O C i nve sti ga te d G re en ’ s c harg es a nd c onc lud ed that G re enw as not term inated because of his race . It issued Gree n a right to sue no tice. G reenThe c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt for def

endant on Gr een’ s claim for punitive 1 damag es as to the hostile work e nvironment claim. That issue ha s not been a ppeale d. 7 subs eque ntl y

f ile d th is a ct ion . Green bro ug ht cla im s fo r vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh ts pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (e ) (T itl e V II ) an d 42 U . S. C. § 19 81, f or both w ro ngf

ul t er m inatio n onthe basis of race and host ile work e nvironm ent race discrim ination . De fendant m oved fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t, and the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on a s to the w ro ngf ul te rm inatio n c la im . T ha t c la im w as tr ie d to aj ur

y , w hic h r et

ur ne d ave rd ic t f

or the defendant. T he district court found th e evidence sufficie nt to withstandsumm ary ju d g m en to n th e h o s t i l e w o rken v i ro n m en tcl ai m , b u tac ce p t ed th e d ef en d an t ’s 1 ar gum en t tha t the E E O C c harg e w as pr oc ed ur al ly de fi ci en t a s to thi s c la im . T he co urt gave G re enf

if te enday s to r es pond

to de fe ndant’ s arg um en t. Gr een filed a brief and af fidavit in respon se. In the aff idavit, Gr een stated th athe sp ok e to an EEOC in ve st ig at oran d t ol d h im ab ou t t he ha ras si ng co nd uc t. H e al so t es tif

ie d th at he pr ovi de d pa

pe rw ork to the E E O C d et ai lin g th es e inc ide nts an d th at he be lie ve d th at

the inc ide nts of

hara ssm en t w oul d be inc lud ed in his E E O C c harg e. G re en ’ s c ouns el state d th at he a tte m pte d to obt ai n G re en ’ s f

ile fro m th e EEOC, bu t was ad vi se d b y th e EEOC th atth e fi le ha d b een de st ro y ed . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d G re en ’ s arg um en ts and e nte re d su m m ar y j udgm en t on8

the hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im f or de fe ndant. G re enf ile d am oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n of

thi s r uli ng. H e ca lle d a tte nti on to a co m pa ni on cas e, D en nis v . E lix ir , N o. CV 501-84 , in w hich Gre en’ s colleague, D w igh t D en nis , ha d f

ile d apr o se c om

pla int of r ac ia l hara ssm en t a ga ins t E lix ir , in the sam e co urt and b ef

or e the sam e j udge . E lix ir r ai se d pr ec ise ly

the sam e iss ue in D en nis , arg uin g th at

an a lle ge d pr oc ed

ur al de fi ci en cy

in the E E O C c harg e w ith respect to allegations of workplace har assm ent barred the c laim . De nnis, however, wa s able to obtain and produce wr itten docum ents that he presented a hostile work en vir onm en t c la im

to the E E O C ( tho ugh not on the c harg e its el f) be fo re the ag en cy de str oy ed

his f ile . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sti ngui she d G re en ’ s si tuatio n, ca lli ng G re en ’ s a ff

idavit “ se lf -s er vin g” a nd n oti ng tha t G re enha d be enuna ble to pr oduc e an y

pa pe rw ork f ro m the E E O C. T he c ourt de nie d th e m oti on f or re co nsi de ratio n. STA ND AR D O F REVIE W W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. H igd on v . J ac ks on , 393 F.3d 121 1, 1218 (11th Cir. 2004 ). A N A LY SI S T he iss ue is w he the r, in the f ac e of e vid en ce of

hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t dis cr im inatio n, the f

ac t tha t G re en ’ s E E O C c harg e did not c ont ai n sp ec if

ic9

a l l e g a t i o n s o f

h o s t i l e w o rke n v i r o n me n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n b a r s th a tc l a i m.

“ Pr ior to fi lin g aT itl e V II a ct ion. . . apla int if f fi rs t m ust f ile ac harg e of discrim ination with the E EO C.” Gregory v. Ge orgia De p’t of Human R esources , 355 F. 3d 1 277, 127 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . T he pur pose of thi s r equir em en t i s th at

the EE OC “ shou ld have the first oppo rtunity to investi gate the alleged discrim inatory pr ac tic es to pe rm it it to p er fo rm it s r ole in obt ai nin g vo lun tary c om pli an ce a nd prom oting conciliation efforts.” Id . E qua lly im portant, the c harg e re qui re m en t se rv es to no ti fy

th e em pl oyer of t he all eg at io ns m ad e ag ai ns t i t. W ilkerson v. G rin ne ll Co rp. , 270 F . 3d 1 314, 131 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . T he se pol ic y c onc er ns ha ve m ove d us to hol d th at apla int if f’ s c om pla int is “ lim ite d by

the sc ope of

the E E O C i nve sti ga tio n w hic h c anr ea sona bly be e xpe ct ed

to gr owout

of the c harg e of discrim ination .” G re

gory , 35 5 F .3dat 1 28 0 (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d) . Ne vertheless, c ourts m

ust be “ extrem ely

reluctant to allow proce dural technicalities to bar claim s brough t under [T itle VI I] .” Id . ; see Sanchez v. Stan dard Brands, Inc. , 431 F . 2d 4 55, 461 -6 2 ( 5thCi r. 197 0) ( em pha siz ing the

“ hum an itari anund er

pin nin gs o f T itl e V II a nd the c ru ci al r ole play ed by the pr ivate litigant in the statuto ry

schem e”). T he re is no d isp ute that the thr ee state m en ts i n G re en ’ s E E O C c harg e em pha siz e G re en ’ s te rm inatio n a s th e ce ntr al dis cr im inator y a ct . T he c harg e al so10

li st s J an ua ry

2, 2 00 1, as th e st art in g a nd en di ng da te of t he di sc riminat ory co nd uc t. Howev er, t hi s d oe s n ot ne ces sa ril y ba r Green ’s ho st il e wor k e nv iro nm en t cl ai m . In Sanchez , ac as e on whic h bo th p ar tie s r el y , w e re

j ec te d th e de fe ndantem plo y er ’ s arg um en ts tha t the pla int if f’ s c la im s ba se d onna tio na l or igi n dis cr im inatio n w er e barr ed be ca use she c he ck ed

the box on the E E O C c harg e m ar ke d “ se x” r athe r than “ na tio na l or igi n. ” 431 F . 2d at 46 1. W e state d: “ Inthe co nte xt o f a statut e lik e T itl e V II it is inc onc ei vable that a

c harg ing party ’ s r igh ts shou ld be cut off m erely

because he f

ails to articulate corr ectly the legal conclusio n em anating from his factual allegations.” L ikewise, the fac t that Gre en re spon de d onthe c harg e w ithasin gle da te w he n a ske d w he n th e dis cr im inatio n occurred does not m ean that his harassm ent claim s are bar red. K nowing which ac ts c onst itu te dis cr im inator y c ondu ct a nd whic h are of

fe nsi ve a nd h ar as sin g, but no t p er s e act io nabl e, req ui res leg al tra in in g, wh ic h Gre en di d n ot po ss es s. Sanchez’s reas on in g app li es wit h e qu al for ce h ere. D ef en dant atte m

pts to dis tin gui sh Sanchezby point ing ou t that the facts set fo rth by G re enin the c harg e did

not giv e E lix ir

not ic e that he int en de d to br ing a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im . T his , how ev er , is ve ry m uc h akinto the argum ent m ade by

the Sanchezde fe ndant: “ Ce rt ai nly it is not unr ea sona

ble to re qui re ac harg ing party

pr om ptl y to ar tic ulate the r ea son w hy

he thi nks he is11

being treated unfairly

by an em ploy er. ” Id

. a t 46 2. W e re

j ec te d th is arg um en t f

or three re asons, all of w hich are r elevant here: Fi rs t, the c harg ing party

m ay have pr ec ise kno w le dge of the f ac ts co nc er nin g th e ‘ unf

ai r thi ng’ don e to h im , y et not be f ull y a w ar e of the em plo y er ’ s m oti va tio n f

or pe rp etratin g th e ‘ unf

ai r thi ng. ’ S ec ondl y , the ch ar gin g party

m ay be so unle tte re d and i nart ic ulate that he doe s no t f ull y com prehend the disti nction b etwe en an act m otivated by‘ sex dis cr im inatio n’ and an id en tic al a ct m oti va te d by

‘ na tio na l or igi n dis cr im inatio n. ’ F ina lly , the c harg ing party m ay sim ply be uns ch ool ed

and unso phi sti cate d inthe use of f orm s. S houl d ac harg ing party f or fe it his ca use of a ct ionf or r ea sons suc h a s th es e? W e thi nk n ot. Id . a t 46 2- 63. Wha te ve r G re en ’ s le ve l of e duc at ion , the re is no que sti on tha t he shou ld not be held to the level of understandi ng the dis tinctive legal nuances be tw ee n c la im s th at

c onst itu te hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t di sc ri m inatio n and those instead which constitu te w rongful term ination based on race. L ike Ms. S anchez, Gr een filed his charge of discrim ination pro se. Gr een even stated, in a distin ct fa ct ua l a lle ga tio n, that he w as “ dis cr im inate d a ga ins t be ca use of [ his ] r ac e. ” T his allegation contain s no refer ence to his term ination ; it is sim ply an unqualified state m en t, standi ng a lon e, of r ac e dis cr im inatio n. “ It

w oul d f al sif y [ T itl e V II ’ s] hopes to require ver

bal precision and finesse from those to be protected . . . .” Sanchez , 431 F . 2d at 46 5. O ur r ec en t ho ldi ng i n Gregory v. Ge orgia De p’t of Human R esources , 355 F.3 d 1 27 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) is of s om e as si st an ce. The re, p la in ti ff Greg ory , a12

phy sic ian, a lle ge d th at

she ha d be ente rm inate d f or “ no l eg iti m at e re as on. ” S he m ar ke d th e spa ce s onthe c harg e fo r “ ge nde r an d r ac e dis cr im inatio n” a nd l ef t the

“ retaliation” space blank. She also stated that she “ believe[d] that [she] had been discrim inated against on the basis of m y rac e (B lack Am erican) and m y sex (fem ale). ” Id

. a t 12 79. A ft er r ec ei vin g he r ri ght

to sue not ic e fr om

the E E O C, G re gor

y a sse rt ed in he r co m pla int that he r te rm inatio n w as m oti va te d by he r ra ce a nd w as in re ta liatio n fo r he r co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t h er s up erv is or ’s con du ct . Id . D efendant argued that her al le gatio ns o f re ta liatio n w er e adm ini str at ive ly barr ed be ca use she ha d on ly al le ge d r ac e dis cr im inatio n inhe r E E O C c harg e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sa gr ee d and w e af fi rm ed : A ft er ac ar ef ul de novo rea ding of D r. Gr egory ’ s EE OC charge pre pared w ith out the a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el , a nd unde r the li be ra l E E O C c harg e strictures of Sanchez , w e hol d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fi ndi ng that Dr. Gr egory ’ s retaliation claim wa s not adm inistrativelybarre d by her fa ilure to m ar

k th e re ta liatio n sp ac e on the E E O C t em plate f orm . T he f

ac ts al le ge d inhe r E E O C c harg e co uld have r ea sona

bly be ene xte nde d to encom pass a claim

for r etaliation because they we re inextricably

intertwined w ithhe r co m

pla int s of r ac e an d se x di sc ri m inatio n. T ha t i s, she state d f ac ts from which a r easonable EE OC investig ator could have concludedthat what she ha d c om

pla ine d a bout is re ta liatio n. Id . a t 12 80. T he pr ope r inquir y , a s th es e ca se s m ak e cl ear, is w he the r the co m pl ai nt is “ li ke or r el at edto , or g rew o ut of” th e al le ga ti on s i n t he EEOC13

ch arg e. Id

. That the f acts involv ing Gree n’ s harassm ent and term ination claim s are

“ ine xtr ic ab ly

int er tw ine d” ha s a lr ea dy

be ene sta bli she d. A t tri al on h is wro ngf ul te rm inatio n c la im , G re enw as pe rm itt ed to intro duc e ev ide nc e of r ac ia l hara ssm en t while at E lixir, including evidence of the three hangm an’ s noos es. The r eason that suc h e vid en ce w as pe rm itt ed , pla inl y , is that i t w as r el ev an t t o hi s a lle ga tio n of w ro ngf ul t er m inatio n. T hus, if

that e vid en ce w as r el ev an t t o, or r el at ed to, his c as e at tr ia l, it sho uld li ke w ise be “ re la te d to ” or “ lik e” the e vid en ce a nd a lle ga tio ns o f ha ras sm en t. T he pol ic ie s su

ppor tin g th e E E O C c harg e re qui re m en t su ppor t this co nc lus iona s w el l. O ne of the pr im ar

y pur pose s f or the c harg e re qui re m en t i s to pr ov id e n ot ic e to th e em

pl oyer of t he all eg at io ns ag ai ns t i t. W ilk er son , 270 F. 3d at 1319 . H er e, the e vid en ce of r ac ia l hara ssm en t, if

be lie ve d ( as it

m ust be on summ ary j udgm ent review ), is so sub stantial that Elixir shou ld already have been on n oti ce of

the pr obl em s a t i ts p lant. Many of G re en ’ s a lle ga tio ns d ir ec tly inv olv e m an ag em en t- le ve l e m plo y ee s a t E lix ir . E lix ir

ha d, or sho uld have ha d, am ple not ic e of

the r ac ia lly

hos til e w orkin g c ondi tio ns at i ts p lant. I t i s disin genuou s for E lixir to plead ign orance beca use Gre en did no t include each specific ac t of harassm ent on his EE OC charge.14

D ef en dant r el ie s he av ily

on Ta rt v . H

ill B eh an L um be r C

o. , 31 F . 3d 6 68 (8 th C ir . 199 4) , but

that c as e can be dis tin gui she d inaw ay that de m onstrate s th e fa lla cy of de fe ndant’ s arg um en t. I n Ta rt , a n e m plo y ee state d onhe r adm ini str at ive fo rm that sh e ha d be enw ro ngf ull y te rm inate d. I n he r co m

pla int , how ev er , she included allegatio ns that sh e had been rac ially harassed, and the court held that her ha ras sm en t al le ga ti on s wer e b arre d. Id . at 6 7 2 -7 3 . C ru ci al t o th e E i g h t h Ci rc u i t ’s ru lin g, how ev er , w as the f oll ow ing c onc lus ion : Inthi s c as e, the r ec or d de m onstrate s th at P atri ck Be han w as sol el y responsib le for the dec ision to term inate Tart, and Tar t’ s discrim inatory di sc ha rg e cl ai m

tu rn edup on th e su bjec ti ve m ot iv at io n o f Pat ric k B eh an . T he inc ide nts of

a lle ge d r ac ia l hara ssm en t by c ow orke rs a re dis tin ct

f ro m an d un re la te d to the . . . inc ide nt whic h r es ult ed in . . . [ the ] de ci sio n to di sc ha rg e Tart. . . . F

urthe rm ore, the c ondu ct

of co -e m plo ye es thr ough out Ta rt’ s 11 -y ea r e m

plo ym en t w ith [de

fe ndan t] off

er s li ttl e if anyins igh t i nto P atr ic k B eh an’

s m oti va tio n fo r te rm ina tin g T art . . . . W e the re for e co nc lud

e tha t T art ’s rac ial

harass m en t c lai m is not

suf fic ie ntl y lik e or r elate d to his co m pla int of dis cr im ina tor

y dis ch arge . . . . Id . (em phasis su pplied). H er e, by sharp c ontra st, the ind ivi dua l r es pons ibl e fo r te rm inatin g G re en , Jacel Butler, wa s intim ately fam iliar w ith the allegedly harassing condu ct com plained of by

Gr een. In fac t, he w as allegedly responsibl e for m

uch of that co nduc t hi m se lf

. T he e vid en ce sup portin g G re en ’ s ho sti le w ork e nvi ro nm en t and wr ongful term ination claim s is “ inextricably intertwined, ” G re

gory , 355 F. 3d atGr e e n a lso a pp e ars to a

rgue that he sh ou ld b e pe rm itt e d to “ re tr y the c a se a s a

wh ole wi th 2 the claim of r acia l hara ssment included there in.” We reje ct this claim. The jury found for defe ndant on the wr ong ful termination claim. Judgment on that ver dict has not bee n appea led. 15 12 80 , in th atth e sa m e m an is in lar ge m eas ur e al le ge dl y res po ns ib le forbo th . Face d with these fac ts, a r easonable EE OC investig ator could have concludedthat Green ’s com

pl ai nt s i nv ol ve d a ll eg at io ns of r aci al ha ras sm en t. Se e id. W e take no positio n on th e m erits of G reen’ s claim of hostile work en v i ro n m en tra ce d i s cr i m i n at i o n . Th at i s fo r t h e t ri ero f f ac tt o d et er m i n e. We m er el y hol d th at , on this r ec or d, G re enstate d e noug h onhis E E O C c harg e to wa rr an tan i n v es t i g at i o n o f h o s t i l e w o rken v i ro n m en td i s cr i m i n at i o n at El i x i r. We al so h old that G re enha s r ai se d age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t w ithr es pe ct

to thi s cl ai m , w hic h pr ec lud es sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or the de fe ndant. I t i s in co nsi ste nt w ithT itl e V II ’ s e xpansi ve r em ed ia l a im s to pr ev en t G re en ’ s r ac ia l hara ssm en t cl ai m f ro m pr oc ee din g to tr ia l be ca

use G re en ’ s st at em en ts o n an a dm ini str at ive form m ight h ave been m ore exhaustive. 2 REVERSED AND REMANDED.Gre en’s c harg e complaine d only of his termination. Additionally , he def ined the re levant 1 time period of the disc riminatory conduct a s the single day on which he w as fire d. 16 H IL L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: T oday , the m aj or ity

hol ds tha t a

pla int if f’ s f ai lur e to a lle ge f

ac ts s uf fi ci en t to inform the EE OC that he com

plained of hos tile work environm ent as we ll as wr ongful term ination is a “procedural technicality ” that cannot be allowed to bar a subs equent Title V II c laim . Although conceding that Green’ s EE OC charge does not allege a single fac t that r ea sona bly c oul d have be ene xpe ct ed to pr om pt the E E O C t o in ve sti ga te ac harg e of hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, the m aj or ity 1 ch ar ac te ri ze s th is a s af

ai lur e to art ic ulate ac or

re ct le ga l c onc lus ione m an at ing fr o m h i s fa ct u al al l eg at i o n s , a n dth en ex cu s es th i s fa i l u re as th e r es u l to f G re en ’s la ck of le ga l tra ini ng. R es pe ct fu lly , I c an not c onc ur in thi s c hara ct er iz at ionof the record in this case. Fu rt h er m o re , I ca n n o tco n cu r i n th e majo ri t y’ s co n cl u s i o n th at Gr ee n ’s as se rt ionthat he w as “ dis cr im inate d a ga ins t be ca use of [ his ] r ac e, ” co nst itu te s a factual a llegation su fficient to suppo rt hostile work environm ent claim . Such an al le gatio n, the n, by

it se lf , and w ith out

m or e, w oul d su

ppor t any c onc ei vable j udi ci al dis cr im inatio n c la im and r en de r the r equir em en t t o e xhaust one s c la im s in the E E O C t ota lly

ir re le vant.InSanchez v . Standard Brands, Inc ., 431 F.2d 455, r elied upon by our pane l here , the 2 failure of the e mploy ee to pr esent to the EEO C a full statement of his complaint is ref err ed to on eac h and eve ry

pag e of the decision (Par ts I I , I I I , I V and V) as a “ technica lity .” Perha ps my view is informed by

my own experienc e as a

y oung(what a memory !) lawy er, c omplaining that the point advance d ag ainst my position by

opposing c ounsel was “ a mer e tec hnicality .” The very fi ne jud g e pr e sid ingloo ke d at me , k ind ly but po sit ive ly , a

nd sa id, “ Mr . H ill , a

te c hn ic a lity

is a point of law upon which you lose. I f you win on it, it i s a cor nerstone of

Americ an jurisprudenc e!” 17 W e ha ve ind ee d tr av el ed

alon g w ay

down th e ro ad

that pe rm its us t o lib er al ly c onstru e the f

ac tua l a lle ga tio ns o f a pla int if f’ s E E O C c harg e in de te rm ini ng wha t c la im s w er e fa ir ly r ai se d th er e. B ut I a m

unaw ar e of

a ny c as e that, he re tof

or e, pe rm itt ed

us t o c onc lud e that a

c la im w as f ai rl y r ai se d inthe ab se nc e o f a s in gl e fac tu al all eg at io n t ha t wo ul d s up po rt s uc h a n i nf eren ce. T he re fo re , I m

ust r es pe ct fu lly

dis se nt. 2