Opinion ID: 767222
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The EEOC Charge

Text: 35 The district court dismissed Cable's retaliation claim because it fell outside the scope of his July 1994 EEOC complaint. A plaintiff may not bring claims in a lawsuit that were not included in the EEOC charge. See Alexander v. Gardner- Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47 (1974); Cheek v. Peabody Coal Co., 97 F.3d 200, 202 (7th Cir. 1996). This requirement serves to enhance the administrative enforcement process by ensuring that the EEOC can conduct a full investigation while also providing the employer with advance notice of the claim and an opportunity to resolve the dispute. See Harper v. Godfrey Co., 45 F.3d 143, 148 (7th Cir. 1995). As such, it is a procedural requirement that we take seriously. A claim falls within the scope of the EEOC complaint if it is like or reasonably related to the charges in the EEOC complaint and if it reasonably could have developed from the EEOC's investigation of the charges before it. Cheek, 97 F.3d at 202. 36 Cable alleged in his EEOC complaint, filed on July 12, 1994, that he had been fired because the standards used to make the termination decision had a discriminatory effect. He checked the other box and wrote in disability as the reason for his termination but failed to check the retaliation box. More significant than this technical defect, the body of his complaint fails even to hint at retaliation, much less develop a factual basis for such a claim. The main body of the complaint contained only three sentences: 37 I. I was hired by the Respondent on September 5, 1989. I was terminated on May 7, 1994. 38