Opinion ID: 44744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disparate Pay Claim

Text: In his brief, which we liberally construe, Jerome argues that because he circled “wages” on a questionnaire that he filled out for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and informed the EEOC about his disparate 1 According to the defendant, it is named incorrectly in the style of this case. 2 pay claim 2 during the intake process, the EEOC and Crestline were on notice of this claim, and, thus, the district court should have denied Crestline’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We review de novo a district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings, “accept[ing] all facts in the complaint as true and view[ing] them in the light most favorable to the [nonmovant].” Hardy v. Regions Mortgage, Inc., 449 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “No action alleging a violation of Title VII may be brought unless the alleged discrimination has been made the subject of a timely-filed EEOC charge.” Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1332 (11th Cir. 2000). See generally 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. “EEOC regulations provide that charges should contain, among other things, ‘[a] clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices.’” Alexander, 207 F.3d at 1332 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a)(3)). Although we liberally construe EEOC charges that are prepared without the assistance of counsel, “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.” Gregory v. Ga. Dep’t of 2 Because Jerome fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his gender discrimination and racial harassment claims, we deem these issues abandoned. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989). 3 Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted); see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”). In Gregory, for example, we held that even though the plaintiff failed to check the box labeled “retaliation” on the EEOC charge, she nonetheless alleged facts in the charge that reasonably encompassed a retaliation claim, and, thus, her retaliation claim was exhausted. Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1280. When Jerome filed his EEOC charge, he alleged only the denial of a promotion. Nowhere does there appear on the charge a reference to his disparate pay claim. Jerome’s only evidence for making the claim to the EEOC, other than his own unsworn statements, is an EEOC charge questionnaire on which he circled “wages” when prompted to identify the specific discriminatory actions he was complaining of. Immediately below this section, however, when asked to explain these discriminatory actions, Jerome complained only of being passed over for a promotion. Given his own explanation, merely circling “wages” on the questionnaire fell far short of putting the EEOC on notice that Jerome was also claiming that Crestline paid its white employees less than its black employees. And unlike the allegations in the Gregory case, the facts relating to Jerome’s 4 promotion claim (such as the comparative qualifications of Jerome and Schultz) do not encompass facts that would also support a disparate pay claim. Because Jerome failed to inform the EEOC of such a claim, the district court correctly granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.