Opinion ID: 434746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Relation of the Discriminatory Treatment Claim

Text: 21 When an employee seeks judicial relief for incidents not listed in his original EEOC charge, a federal court may assume jurisdiction over the new claims if they are like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge. Oubichon v. Northern American Rockwell Corp., 482 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1973). If closely related incidents occur after a charge has been filed, additional investigative and conciliative efforts would be redundant.  'To require a second filing by the aggrieved party ... would serve no purpose other than the creation of an additional procedural technicality.'  Ramirez v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315, 1320 (9th Cir.1978) citing Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526, 92 S.Ct. 616, 618, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972). 22 Where claims are not so closely related that agency action would be redundant, the EEOC must be afforded an opportunity to consider disputes before federal suits are initiated. Bypassing the administrative process under such circumstances frustrates the policy of encouraging informal conciliation and fostering voluntary compliance with Title VII. McRae filed the following charge with the EEOC: 23 The respondent discriminates against women in the administration of, and in admission to, the apprenticeship program. I am a woman. On August 16, 1977, I tried to apply for the commercial electrical apprenticeship program. My application was rejected because I was over 25 years old and had no military service. I believe this age requirement is discriminatory. 24 Any investigation of whether McRae's application was rejected as the result of disparate impact would not have encompassed her subsequent claim that when she reapplied to the program she was subjected to intentional sex discrimination.  'It is only logical to limit the permissible scope of the civil action to the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.'  Serpe v. Four-Phase Systems, Inc., 718 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir.1983), citing Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 466 (5th Cir.1970). McRae's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies before the EEOC precluded the presentation of her discriminatory treatment claim in federal court. 25