## ROBERT L EE J OHNSON, Plaintiff,

v. I NTERSTATE MANAG EMENT CO., L L C,

Def endant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action No. 11-1702 DAR

MEMORAN DUM OP INION AND ORDER Plaintiff Robert L ee Johnson, procee ding pro se , commence d this action ag ainst his former employ er, D efe ndant I nterstate Ma nag ement Company , following its termination of his employ ment. This matter wa s ref err ed to the under signe d United States Mag istrate Judge f or all 1 

## purposes. Notice , Consent, and Refe renc e of a Civil Action to a Mag istrate Judge ( Document No. 19); Refe rra l to Mag istrate Judge ( Document No. 21) . Following the pre viously assig ned United States District J udg e’s r uling on De fenda

nt’s motion to di smiss t he orig inal complaint, Plaintiff sought lea

ve of the court to ame nd his complaint, Motion [ to] Amend[] Complaint (Doc ument No. 20), whic h the cour t gr anted a s unopposed, 09/05/2012 Minute Order

. There afte r, De fenda

nt moved, pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6), to dismiss Plaintiff’s amende d complaint. Motion to Dism iss the Amended Complaint (“De fenda nt’s Motion”) (Doc ument No. 25). De fenda nt’s motion is pending for de termination by the

P l a i n t i f f a l s o b r o u g h t c l a i m s a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t ’ s d i r e c t o r o f h u m a n r e s o u r c e s , V a n e s s a P e t e r s . H o w e v e r , 1 t h e c o u r t ( H u v e l l e , J

. ) d i s m i s s e d t h e “ c l a i m s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t P e t e r s i n h e r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y . ” M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n ( D o c u m e n t N o . 1 1 ) a t 8

.J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 2



## undersig ned. Upon c onsideration of the motion; t he memora nda in support there of and opposition t here to; Pl aintiff’s plea dings, a nd the entire rec ord her ein, the under signe d will gr ant in part De fenda

nt’s motion.

BACK GR OUND
Fr om 2006 until 2011, P laintiff was e mploy ed as a cook at the H amilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, an e stablishment manag ed by Def endant, a hotel manag ement compa ny . See ge nerally Complaint (Document No. 1); Answe r to Complaint (Document No. 16). O n October 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a c omplaint with the United States Equal Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (“EE OC”), c harg e number 570-2011-00006, a lleg ing violations of Title VI I of the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 ( “Title VI I ”), the Ag e Discr imination in Em ploy ment Act (“ ADEA” ), and the Americ ans with Disabilities Act (“A DA”) . Complaint at 2. The EEOC was “ unable to conc lude that the information obtained e stablishe[d] violations of the statute,” a nd mailed notice of Plaintiff’s rig ht to file a lawsuit on Marc h 30, 2011. Def endant’ s Motion, Ex hibit C (Doc ument No. 25-3). 2


## On Marc h 21, 2011, Def

endant ter minated Plaintiff’s employ ment at Hamilton Crowne Plaza. Com plaint, Ex hibit 1 (Document No. 1-1) at 2. Def endant’ s rec ord docume nting the 3


## termination indicates that “ [a] n employ ee w ho was pre pare d to eat their e vening meal discove red a piec e of pla stic under the br eading of a pie ce of chicke n he wa s about to eat. [Plainti ff]
prepa red the meal that the e mploy ee w as ea ting. [Plainti ff] has bee n documented ma ny times

S e e i n f r a p . 7 ; A h u

j a v
. D e t i c a I

n c
. , 7 4 2 F

. S u p p . 2 d 9 6 , 1 0 3 ( D

. D

. C

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ( n o t i n g t h a t 2 t h e c o u r t c o u l d “ c o n s i d e r P l a i n t i f f ’ s E E O C C o m p l a i n t a n d N o t i c e o f C h a r g e ” t h a t w e r e a t t a c h e d a s e x h i b i t s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o t i o n , “ w i t h o u t c o n v e r t i n g t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s ” )

. C i t a t i o n s t o t h e e x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d t o P l a i n t i f f ’ s p l e a d i n g s r e f

e r t o t h e p a g e n u m b e r a s s i g n e d b y E C F

. 3J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 3



## reg arding sanitation issues and food pre para tion.” Id. at 1. The sa me re cord a lso includes a list of pre vious violations and infractions. Id . Plaintiff’s “counse ling/disciplinary ” re cord inc ludes other re ports documenting previous incidents. See id. at 3-11. Following his termination, Plainti ff f iled a complaint with the EEOC, c harg e number 570-2011-00907, a lleg ing violations of Title VI I , the ADEA , and the AD A. Id. at 15. I n this April 22, 2011 complaint, Plaintiff alleg ed that he w as dischar g ed in re taliation for filing his previous EEOC c omplaint. Id. at 16. Specific ally , Plaintiff alleg ed the f ollowing:
I was hired by Respondent o n approximately 7/9/96. My final position was as a Ch ef

. On 10/01/10, I filed an EEOC complaint ag ainst Respondent under Title VI I , ADA and ADEA (cha rg e #:570- 2011-00006). On 3/22/11, I was discharg ed. I believe that the discharg e wa s a re taliatory act due to me filing w ith the EEOC.
I believe that I have been retaliated a g ainst, in violation of Titl e VI I of the Civil Ri gh t s Act of 1964, as amende d. I believe that I have [ b een] reta liated ag ainst, in violation of the Ag e Discrimination i n Employ ment Act of 1967, as amende d. I also believe that I have been reta liated ag ainst, in violation of the Americ ans with Disabilities Act of 1 9 9 0 , as amende d. The employ er has stated the claimaint was discharg ed from his most re cent work for violating company safe ty rules and reg ulations policy , prepa ring chicke n with p l as tic wra p. The claimaint has stated he was asks [si c] to resig n or be terminated for pr epar ing a chicke n that was left in a plastic ba g . The e mploy er has the responsibility to prese nt evidenc e sufficie nt to establish a finding o f misconduct. I n this instant case , the employ er has not provided evidenc e. [T] here fore , work rela ted misconduct on the part of t h e cl aim has not been established. Dec ision: There fore the claimaint listed here in is deter mined elig ible for unempl o y m ent benef its effe ctive 3/20/2011. 4

T h e c o u r t o b s e r v e s t h a t s o m e o f t h e q u o t e d l a n g u a g e a p p e a r s t o c o m e f r o m p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g 4 P l a i n t i f f ’ s u n e m p l o y m e n t b e n e f i t s . I n A p r i l 2 0 1 1 , a c l a i m s e x a m i n e r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f E m p l o y m e n t S e r v i c e s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t D e f e n d a n t h a d n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t P l a i n t i f f w a s d i s c h a r g e d b e c a u s e o f

“ m i s c o n d u c t , ” a n d t h u s , f o u n d P l a i n t i f

f e l i g i b l e f

o r u n e m p l o y m e n t b e n e f i t s . A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t , E x h i b i t 1 ( D o c u m e n t N o . 2 0

- 1 ) a t 1

. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . I d

. a t 3 0

. A n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w J u d g e a f f i r m e d t h e c l a i m s e x a m i n e r ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . C o m p l a i n t , E x h i b i t 1 a t 8 8

.J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 4



## Id. After

investiga ting Plaintiff’s c omplaint, the EEOC determined tha t it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained e stablishes violations of the statutes.” Id. at 13. I t mailed Plaintiff a notice on June 13, 2011, advising tha t Plainti ff c ould file a law suit withi n ninety day s of his rec eipt of the notice

. Id. at 13-14. Plaintiff soug ht rec onsideration of the EEOC’s decision, but the EEOC denie d Plaintiff’s reque st. Id. at 12. Plaintiff initi ated this ac tion on September 12, 2011, and a fter the court g rante d his application to proc eed in forma pauperis , the Clerk of Court filed his c omplaint on September 20, 2011. Memorandum Opinion (D ocument No. 11) at 3-4. The court c onstrued Plaintiff’s orig inal complaint as one a sserting claims “that he was ter minated in reta liation for having filed complaints with the [EEOC] and the Oc cupational a nd Safety Hea lth Adminis tration (“O SHA”), in violation [ of] Titl e VI I of the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 [] , the Ag e Discr imination in Employ ment Act [] , and the Ame rica ns with Disabiliti es Ac t [ ].” Id. at 1. The c ourt noted that it did not appear

“that plaintiff is makingany non-re taliation claims,” and a ccor dingly , declined to addre ss any

such cla ims, “ e.g. for a g e discrimination or wr ong ful dischar g e.” Id. at 8 n.3.
I n his amended c omplaint, Pl aintiff alleg es “ha rassment in the wor

kplace ” and “ hostile workplac e envir onment” stemming from discrimination base d on his race , national orig in, or ethnicity . Amended Complaint (Doc ument No. 20) a t 1. Plainti ff a lleg es that anothe r employ ee, ref err ed to as Chef

Spencer , “wa s rac ist ag ainst [P laintiff],” who was the only black e mploy ee that worke d in the kitchen, and w as “hostile” towa rds him beca

use Plaintiff “c aug ht him sexual[ ly ] harassing someone.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff aver s that manag ement knew , or should have known, about this behavior, be cause he re ported it to human resour ces on thre e or f our occ asions. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also alleg es “[d]i scrimination on the basis of a g e by appre nticeship prog rams.”J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 5



## Id. at 2-3. With respec t to Defe ndant’s discriminatory actions, Plaintiff alleg es that “[t] he [h] otel ref use[d] to give [hi m] a re fer ral slip” af

ter he injured himself while wor king, de spite g iving one to another e mploy ee. Id. at 3-4. F inally , Plaintiff contends that the c omplaint reg arding the plastic on the chic ken, that ultimately led to his termination, was “a set up” a nd that the evidenc e was “ falsified” ag ainst him. Id. at 5.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Def endant, in moving to dismi ss Plainti ff’ s amende d complaint, contends that “ plaintiff has fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies and/or f ailed to timely

file his claims.” Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismis s the Amende d Complaint (“Def endant’ s Memorandum” ) (Doc ument No. 25) a t 1. Defe ndant contends tha t Plainti ff’ s “entire amende d complaint,” in which he asser ts “claims of wor

kplace hara ssment based on his alleg ed disability ,

rac e, national or igin, a

nd ethnicity , as we ll as [hi s] claim for ag e discrimination,” f ails to state a claim upon which r elief c an be g rante d beca use Plaintiff either f

ailed to “f irst file a timely

char g e of discrimination with the EEOC” or filed suit “well af

ter 90 da y s following the issuance of the rig ht to sue . . . .” Id. at 4-6. De fenda nt submit s that “plaintiff is fore stalled from filing any additional char g es re lated to his employ ment with I nterstate a s it has been more than 300 day s since his termination.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff contends that his amende d complaint “is timely beca use it relate s back to the orig inal complaint, filed September 12, 2011.” Response in Opposition to Defe ndant’s Motion to Dismiss (“O pposition”) (Doc ument No. 26) a t 1; Pl aintiff’s Supplement to His Opposition to Def endant’ s Motion to Dis miss (Document No. 37) at 1. Plainti ff a rg ues that “[t] o the extent that the amende d complaint alleg es har assment in the workpla ce, the se alleg ations are rea sonablyJ o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 6



## rela ted to the April 22, 2011 EEOC cha rg e, and a re thus timely .” Opposition at 2. Def endant avers that unde r the standa rd of F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 15, the amende d complaint does not rela te bac k to the orig inal complaint beca use it “attempts to set forth cla ims of hara ssment that alleg edly had bee n occur

ring for y ear s prior to plaintiff’s termination,” whic h was the subjec t of his orig inal complaint. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dism iss the Amended Complaint (Docume nt No. 27) at 2. De fenda nt further aver s that the amende d complaint is “untimely beca use plaintiff fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative

reme dies with respe ct to the claims” a lleg ed, re prese nting that Plaintiff fa iled “to file a timely char g e for

eac h discriminatory

act.” Id. at 2-3. F inally , Def endant a rg ues that Plaintiff conc edes its arg ument that his amended c omplaint supersede s his origina l complaint. Id. at 3-4; Def endant’ s Supplement to it s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dis miss (“D efe ndant’s Supplement”) (Doc ument No. 38) a t 5.

AP P LICABLE STANDARD The F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure r equire that a plea ding sta ting a claim for r elief contain “a

short and plain stateme nt of the cla im showing that the ple ader is entitled to relief . . . .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “ To survive a motion to di smiss, a complaint must contain sufficie nt fac tual matter, a cce pted as true , to state a c laim to relief that is plausible on its fac e.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (c itation omit ted) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff must plead “ fac tual content that allows the c ourt to draw the rea sonable infe renc e that the def

endant is liable for

the misconduct alleg ed.” Id. (citation omitted). While the court

must acce pt the alleg ations pled in the complaint as true , “[t] hrea dbare rec itals of the eleme nts of

a ca use of a ction, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice .” Id. (citationJ o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 7



## omitted). “When ruling on a motion to dism iss, the Court may consider only

the fa cts alleg ed in the complaint, any

documents either

attache d to or incorpor ated in the c omplaint and matters of which a c ourt may

take judicial notice .” Plummer v . Safeway, Inc

. , No. 12-0969, 2013 WL 1289745, at *3 (D.D .C. Mar. 30, 2013) ( quoting EEOC v. St. Francis Xav ier Parochial Sch. , 117 F.3d 621, 624 ( D.C. Cir. 1997)) (inter nal quotation marks and a lterations omitted) (citing Ahuja
v. De tica Inc. , 742 F. Supp. 2d 96, 101-02 (D .D.C. 2010) for the proposition that “a cour t may consider a

n EEOC Notice of

Charg e on a motion to dismiss beca use such r ecor ds are ‘public documents of whic h a cour t may take judicial notice ’”)

. When a litigant is proc eeding pro se , the complaint “must be he ld to less stringent standards tha

n formal plea dings dr afte d by lawy ers . . . .” Jones v . Horne , 634 F.3d 588, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Erickson v . Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Eve n under the less stringe nt standard, howe ver, “ it must plead f actua l matter that per

mits t he cour

t to infer more than the mer e possibility

of misconduct.” Id. (citations omitted) (interna l quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSIO N Plaint iff’s Claim s The c ourt has alr eady

deter mined that “plaintiff c annot bring a cla im of retaliation for having filed an O SHA complaint.” Memora ndum Opinion at 7. Accor dingly , the under signe d will not consider Plaintiff’s alleg ations reg arding Def endant’ s “hea lth violation” for leaving out “bottles of che micals” or Plaintiff’ s alleg ations reg arding the hotel’s “illeg al re novation without a building per

mit.” See Amended Complaint at 2-4. Wit h respe ct to Plaintiff’s claim of re taliation for having filed an EE OC complaint, theJ o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 8



## undersig ned finds that said c laim is properly befor e the c ourt since it survived De fenda nt’s previous motion to dism iss. See Memorandum Opinion at 5, 9 ( “Plaintiff’s re taliation claims are not time-barr ed and w ill therefor e not be dismissed on that g round.”) . I n so finding, the court reje cts Def

endant’ s arg ument that Plaintiff’s amende d complaint superse des his orig inal complaint. See Def

endant’ s Supplement at 5-6. While an amende d complaint g ener ally
superse des the orig inal, the cour t, mindful of Plainti ff’ s pro se status, will ins tead c onsider his pleading s collectively

. See F ord v. Donov an , 891 F. Supp. 2d 60, 62 (D.D .C. 2012) (“Instead of
superse ding his orig inal Complaint, as a ty pical Amende d Complaint does, this later ple ading supplements it. Given his pro se status, the Court will treat the combined ple ading s as one joint Complaint.”); Kim v. United States , 840 F. Supp. 2d 180, 185 (D.D .C. 2012) (citing , inter alia , Richardson v. United States , 193 F.3d 545, 548 ( D.C. Cir. 1999)) (noting that “whe re a pro se party has filed multiple submissi ons, the district court must g ener ally consider those filings toge ther a nd as a w hole”) , aff’d , 707 F.3d 335 ( D.C. Cir. 2013). Finally , from wha t the court c an asc erta in, broadly construing Plaintiff’s pleading s, Plaintiff has asser

ted new c laims of “har assment in the workpla ce” based on his ra ce, national orig in, or ethnicity , resulting in a “hostile workpla ce e nvironment,” a nd of ag e discrimination. 5


## See Amended Complaint at 1-2. The ref ore, the following claims are pending : (1) ter mination in

reta liation for filing an EEOC c omplaint; (2) hara ssment based on ra ce, na tional orig in, or ethnicity ; (3) hostile work e nvironment; and (4) ag e discrimination.

I n h i s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f s u b m i t s t h a t h e “ w a s [ l ] e g a l l y b l i n d i n [ h i s ] l e f t e y e , ” a n d t h a t 5

“ H a m p t o n C r o w n P l a z a H o t e l t o o k a d v a n t a g e o f [ h i s ] e y e s i g h t

. . . . ” A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t a t 5

. T h e c o u r t , h o w e v e r , h a s n o t c o n s t r u e d a c l a i m u n d e r t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t i n c l u d e a n y a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t h e d i d n o t p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e i n h i s i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t

. S e e C o m p l a i n t a t 7

. T h e c o u r t ( H u v e l l e , J

. ) a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d , a f t e r “ [ l ] i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u i n g ” P l a i n t i f f ’ s s u b m i s s i o n s , t h a t P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t r a i s e s u c h a c l a i m . S e e M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n a t 8 n . 3

.J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 9



## Exhau stion of Adm inis trative Rem edies Def endant a rg ues that Plaintiff’s EEOC cha rg e only encompa sses his claim of re taliatory discharg e, and a ccor dingly , Plaintiff’s additional claims “a re outside the sc ope of the char g e and should be dismissed” for f ailure to e x haust his administrative reme dies. Def endant’ s Memorandum a t 5-6. Plaintiff counters tha t the “alleg ations are rea sonably rela ted to the April 22, 2011 EEOC cha

rg e, and a re thus timely .” Opposition at 2.
I t is well established that “[p] rior to filing a Title VI I suit, a plaintiff must ex haust his administrative re medies by filing a n EEOC cha

rg e outlining his alleg ations.” Duberry v . InterCon Sec. Sy

s., Inc. , 898 F. Supp. 2d 294, 298 (D.D .C. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e) ). Simi larly , no civil action under the ADEA may

be commenc ed unless the individual has timely filed with the EEOC a c harg e of unla wful discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). “I f a pla intiff does not timely

exhaust his admini strative re medies . . . his claim is subject to dismiss al under Rule 12(b)(6) for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be g rante d.” Noisette v. Lew , No. 11-1594, 2013 WL 1289864, at *2 (D.D .C. Mar. 30, 2013) ( citation omitted); see also Koch v

. W alter , No. 10-0150, 2013 WL 1291097, at *3 (D.D .C. Mar. 30, 2013) ( “Prudential e x haustion under Title VI I and the AD EA . . . is evalua ted either under Rule 12( b)(6) for f ailure to state a claim or . . . unde r Rule 56.”)

. 

## “A Title VI I

lawsuit following the EEOC cha rg e is limit ed in scope to claims that are like

or re asonably

rela ted to the alleg ations of the cha rg e and g rowingout of such alleg ations.” Park v. Howard Univ. , 71 F.3d 904, 907 ( D.C. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (interna l quotation marksJ o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 1 0



## omitted); see also Koch , 2013 WL 1291097, at *3 (c itation omit ted)

. 

## This standard a lso applies 6 

## to matters broug ht pursuant to the ADEA

. Emory v . United Air Lines, Inc. , 821 F. Supp. 2d 200, 226 (D.D.C. 2011) ( internal quotation marks a nd altera tions omi tted) (c itation omit ted) (“ [A] n ADEA la wsuit is li mited in scope to claims that ar e like or r easona bly rela ted to the alleg ations in the EEOC cha

rg e.”)

. “I n order

for a claim to be conside red ‘ rea sonably rela ted’ to a c laim contained in the a dminist rative c omplaint, it ‘must arise f rom the administrative investig ation that can r easona

bly be expected to f

ollow the char g e of discr imination.’” Koch , 2013 WL 1291097, at *3 (c iting Payne v. Salazar , 619 F.3d 56, 65 n.9 ( D.C. Cir. 2010)). “Althoug h it is t rue tha t the administrative cha rg e re quirement should not be construe d to place a hea

vy technica l burden on individuals untrained in ne g otiating pr ocedur al laby rinths, it is also true that the r equire ment of some spec ificity in a cha rg e is not a mere technica lity .” Park , 71 F.3d a t 907 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed) ( citations omitt ed). “ Allowing a complaint to
encompa ss alleg ations outside the ambit of the pre dicate E EOC char g e would cir cumvent the EEOC’s investig atory

and conc iliatory

role, a s well as depr ive the cha rg ed par ty of notice of

the char g e, as sur ely

as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC cha

rg e.” Marshall v. Fed.

I n N a t i o n a l R a i l r o a d P a s s e n g e r C o r p o r a t i o n v
. M o r

g a n , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a n a l y z e d t h e c h a r g e f i l i n g 6 p r o v i s i o n u n d e r T i t l e V I I , 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( e ) ( 1 ) , a n d h e l d t h a t “ d i s c r e t e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a c t s a r e n o t a c t i o n a b l e i f t i m e b a r r e d , e v e n w h e n t h e y a r e r e l a t e d t o a c t s a l l e g e d i n t i m e l y f i l e d c h a r g e s . ” 5 3 6 U

. S

. 1 0 1 , 1 1 3 ( 2 0 0 2 )

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t c l a i m s , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f “ n e e d o n l y f

i l e a c h a r g e w i t h i n 1 8 0 o r 2 0 0 d a y s o f a n y a c t t h a t i s p a r t o f t h e h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t

. ” I d

. a t 1 1 8

. S o m e j u d g e s o f t h i s c o u r t h a v e q u e s t i o n e d t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e P a r k s t a n d a r d f o l l o w i n g t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i n M o r g a n . S e e , e
. g
. , W

a d e v
. D i s t

. o f C o l u m b i a , 7 8 0 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 , 1 4 ( D

. D

. C

. 2 0 1 1 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( “ T h e C o u r t d o e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t s e v e r a l c o u r t s i n t h i s d i s t r i c t h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e ‘ l i k e o r r e a s o n a b l y t o ’ s t a n d a r d e l i c i t e d i n P a r k n o l o n g e r a p p l i e s i n l i g h t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n [ M o r g a n ] t h a t e a c h d i s c r e t e a d v e r s e e m p l o y m e n t a c t i o n i n d i v i d u a l l y t r i g g e r s T i t l e V I I ’ s l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d o n f i l i n g c l a i m s . ” )

. T h e C i r c u i t h a s d e c l i n e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r M o r g a n o v e r r u l e d P a r k a n d “ t h a t l i n e o f c a s e s . ” P a y n e v
. S a l a z a r , 6 1 9 F

. 3 d 5 6 , 6 5 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2 0 1 0 )

. A n o t h e r m e m b e r o f t h i s c o u r t h a s r e a s o n e d t h a t “ [ b ] e c a u s e t h i s C i r c u i t h a s y e t t o a d d r e s s t h e p r e c i s e r e a c h o f M o r g a n , a n d b e c a u s e . . . t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s f

a i l t o s a t i s f

y e v e n t h e m o r e l i b e r a l s t a n d a r d a n n o u n c e d i n P a r k , t h e c o u r t d e c l i n e s t o p a s s o n t h i s i s s u e . ” H u d s o n v
. C h i l d r e n ’ s N a t ’ l M e d

. C t r
. , 6 4 5 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 , 3 n . 4 ( D

. D

. C

. 2 0 0 9 )

.J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 1 1



## Express Corp. , 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (interna l quotation marks and alter ations omitted) (quoting Schnellbaec her v. Bask in Clot hing Co. , 887 F.2d 124, 127 ( 7th Cir. 1989)).
I n his April 22, 2011 EEOC char g e for m, in the section labele d “discrimination base d on,” Plaintiff indicated tha t the alleg ed discrimination was ba sed on re taliation, and did not chec k
any of the other

box es. Complaint, Ex hibit 1 at 16. Under “ date( s) discrimination took place,” only “03-22- 2011,” the da te on which Plaintiff wa s terminated, a ppear s. Id. Fur

ther, the f ree text section re questing the “pa rticulars” of the discr imination only contains alleg ations reg arding Plaintiff’s termination in retaliation for filing a n EEOC complaint. See id. Be neath the sig nature block, Plaintiff added “ I was the only Bla ck Af ro Amer ican that wor

ked in the kitchen [illeg ible] Spencer Wolf did not like Bla cks. He is racist.” Id. Reviewing the cha

rg e for m, the undersig ned finds that the c laims of hara ssment, hostil e work e nvironment and a g e discrimination which Plaintiff alleg es in his amended c omplaint are not “like or re asonably

rela ted” to the a lleg ations he included in the c harg e for m, which per

tained solely to his termination, alleg edly in retaliation for

having filed an EE OC complaint. There are 7


## no fac tual alleg ations prese nted in the cha rg e for m that would put the EEOC on notice of a ny hara ssment, hostil e wor

k environment a

nd ag e discrimination claims, and g ive rise to an investiga tion of those claims. See, e .g. , Park , 71 F.3d a t 908-09 (finding that beca use the plaintiff’s “E EOC char g e conta ined no claims or f actua l alleg ations that could rea sonably be expected upon investig ation to lead to a hostile work e nvironment claim . . . she f ailed to exhaust

A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f

f r e f e r s t o a n e a r l i e r E E O C c h a r g e , f i l e d o n O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 0 , h e r e l i e s s o l e l y o n h i s A p r i l 7 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 c h a r g e i n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t h e e x h a u s t e d h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s . S e e O p p o s i t i o n a t 2

. F u r t h e r , t h e c o u r t o b s e r v e s t h a t t h e E E O C m a i l e d P l a i n t i f f a n o t i c e o f h i s r i g h t t o f i l e a l a w s u i t , c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 0 c h a r g e , o n M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 1 1

. D e f e n d a n t ’ s M o t i o n , E x h i b i t C

. T h e r e f o r e , a s D e f

e n d a n t n o t e s , a n y c l a i m s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 0 c h a r g e w o u l d b e u n t i m e l y .J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 1 2



## her a dminist rative r emedies f or such a claim at the EEO C”); Bowe-Connor v. Shinsek i , No. 10- 2032, 2013 WL 297781, at *4-5 (D .D.C. J an. 25, 2013) ( finding that the plaintiff fa iled to exhaust her administrative re medies af ter noting that her a lleg ation of national orig in discrimination was “not re asonably rela ted to the alleg ations in her EEO c omplaint, which only alleg ed ag e and g ender

as the ba ses for disc riminatory trea tment”); Hudson , 645 F. Supp. 2d at 6 (finding that the plaintiff fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies for c erta in claims after noting that the a lleg ations in his adminis trative c omplaint and in his civil sui t were “tempora lly distinct, invol ve unique incide nts and asser t entirely differ ent ca

uses of a ction”); cf. W

ade v. D ist. of Columbia , 780 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (D.D .C. 2011) (finding that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment c laim was “ba sed primar ily on the alleg ations he ra ised in his charg es,” a nd thus, he had exhausted his administrative re medies as to that cla im). Plainti ff’ s added a lleg ations that “Spence r Wolf did not li ke B lacks” and “is ra cist” ar e not suffic ient to support Plainti ff’ s new claims, bec ause Plaintiff, in his EEOC cha rg e for m, did not allege any

additional fac ts to sugg est that Spencer

Wolf discriminated ag ainst him. Cf. Park , 71 F.3d a t 908 (internal quotation mar ks and alter ations omitt ed) ( citation omitted) (“[S] ome detail, bey ond a stateme nt that I believe I have be en discriminated a g ainst beca use of my rac e . . . is nec essar

y to allow the ag ency

to perf orm its statutory

duty in reg ard to a

hara ssment claim.”).
Acc ording ly , the cour

t finds that Plainti ff f

ailed to exhaust his adminis trative re medies with respec t to his claims of harassment, hostile work e nvironment and a g e discrimination. Thus, those claims ar e dismissed, and only Plaintiff’s claim of ter

mination in retaliation for filing
an EEOC c omplaint survives.J o h n s o n v . I n t e r s t a t e M a n a g e m e n t C o . , L L C

. 1 3



## Tim eliness Having dismiss ed Plaintiff’s cla ims of hara ssment, hostil e wor k environment, a

nd ag e discrimination for fa ilure to exhaust administ rative r emedies, the court ne ed not consider the timeliness of these cla ims. W ith respec t to Pl aintiff’s c laim of termination in reta liation for filing
an EEOC c omplaint, the court (Huve lle, J .) has a lrea dy deter mined that the claim is timely

. Memorandum Opinion at 5- 6.

CONCLUSION
For the fore g oing r easons, it is, this 27 day of Aug ust, 2013, t h


## ORDERED that Def

endant’ s Motion to Dis miss the Amended Complaint (Document No. 25) is GR

ANTED IN P ART ; and it is
F URTHER ORDERED that the par ties appea r for a status conf

ere nce on T hursday , September 12, 2013 a t 2:30 p.m. to address the re maining c laim. 8



## /s/ DEB ORAH A. ROB I

NSON United States Mag istrate Judge

T h e p a r t i e s o r i g i n a l l y c o n t e m p l a t e d f i l i n g d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s f o l l o w i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f D e f e n d a n t ’ s m o t i o n 8 t o d i s m i s s a n d c o m p l e t i o n o f d i s c o v e r y . S e e S c h e d u l i n g O r d e r ( D o c u m e n t N o . 2 3 )

. B e c a u s e t h e c o u r t v a c a t e d t h e d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s b r i e f i n g s c h e d u l e p e n d i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n , O r d e r ( D o c u m e n t N o . 3 4 ) a t 2 , t h e c o u r t w i l l h e a r f

r o m t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g h o w t h e y w i s h t o p r o c e e d

.