Opinion ID: 774130
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Additional Claims

Text: 76 1. Religious Discrimination and Denial of Bonus and Overtime. The district court properly dismissed Holtz's claim that she was denied a bonus and overtime pay in retaliation for her complaints about Mumbach's alleged sexual harassment. This claim bears no factual or legal relation to the allegations in the EEOC charge and would not naturally be addressed in the course of an EEOC investigation into such allegations. The same is true of Holtz's claim of religious discrimination, about which the EEOC charge is entirely silent. 77 2. National Origin. The EEOC charge did, however, effectively put the agency and RCI on notice that Holtz was alleging national origin discrimination. On the form she submitted to the EEOC, she checked a box indicating that the discrimination was based on her national origin. She also stated that she was of English-German national origin, that she had not been trained as promised, and that her supervisor hired and trained women... who were of Irish national origins. 78 We nonetheless affirm the dismissal of the national origin claim because the record is barren of any evidence that Holtz suffered discrimination on this basis. Holtz's chief complaint is that her supervisor and several co-workers formed a little clique of Irish people and they would talk about being Irish a lot, and that she was out of the loop. Such allegations fall well short of the sort of materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment that entitles a plaintiff to damages under Title VII. Richardson, 180 F.3d at 446. 79 3. Failure to Promote. The district court concluded that Holtz's claim that RCI failed to promote and transfer her for retaliatory reasons was reasonably related to her failure to train claim. As the district court stated, it would have been reasonable to suspect that the EEOC, in investigating [Holtz's] complaint of failure to train because of age, would have assessed [RCI's] promotion and transfer policies. Holtz, 1999 WL 1043866, at , 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17682, at . The district court nonetheless dismissed this claim on the merits, and we affirm. 80 Holtz applied for but was denied two positions: one with RFS, and one with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The record shows that both companies, while falling under the Rockefeller umbrella, were separate legal entities and not owned by Holtz's employer, RCI. Holtz conceded as much in her deposition. She does not allege that she applied for and was denied any open position within RCI itself. 81 RCI did provide personnel services to RFS, including administrative support for staffing. The district court found that Canterbury -- the Manager of Personnel Administration for RCI who arranged Holtz's interview with RFS -- could have hired plaintiff for a position with RFS had one been available. Holtz, 1999 WL 1043866, at , 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17682, at . By extension, had Canterbury played any role in denying Holtz a position at RFS for discriminatory reasons, perhaps RCI could have been held liable. But there is no evidence that RFS's refusal to hire Holtz was at all related to her complaints. Holtz testified only that she did not get the position and that it was given to another woman. 82 The only allegedly discriminatory conduct occurred with respect to the position at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. There is no dispute that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is legally distinct from RCI, and no allegation that any RCI employee played a part in the former company's decision not to hire Holtz. 83 In short, Holtz's failure to promote or transfer claims fail for the simple reason that the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not attributable to her employer.