Opinion ID: 36896
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sex and Age Discrimination

Text: Anderson begins by arguing that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her sex and age discrimination claims brought under Title VII. According to Anderson, the district court erred when it found that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to these claims. Anderson contends that she discussed sex and age discrimination with the EEOC in connection with her January 28, 2000 charge of discrimination but that EEOC representatives chose not to mark the boxes for sex and age discrimination on her charge. She also claims that this charge of discrimination referenced other charges previously filed by her--charges that explicitly raised sex and age discrimination claims. Anderson’s sex and age discrimination claims fail because she did not exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to them. In this circuit, a plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC prior to seeking judicial relief. Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 780 (5th Cir. 1995). Anderson, however, provided the district court with no evidence that she filed a sex or age discrimination complaint with the EEOC before filing suit. The January 28, 2000 charge of discrimination upon which she relies does not mention these types of discrimination--instead, it 8 alleges racial discrimination and retaliation. While it does mention that Anderson previously filed other charges of discrimination, the January 28, 2000 charge does not state what these prior charges were about; it only references them as possible evidence of retaliation. Moreover, while Anderson implies that the EEOC did not include all of her complaints in the January 28, 2000 charge, Anderson herself signed the charge and did not file another charge alleging age or sex discrimination, as she could have done. Accordingly, because Anderson failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her sex and age discrimination claims, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on them.