Opinion ID: 63004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliatory Failure-to-Promote Claim

Text: Before filing a Title VII action, a federal employee must exhaust her administrative remedies. Crawford v. Babbitt, 186 F.3d 1322, 1326 (11th Cir. 1999); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). A plaintiff’s subsequently filed civil action is limited by the scope of the administrative investigation that “can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Gregory v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is “to give the agency the information it needs to investigate and resolve the dispute between the employee and the employer.” Brown v. Snow, 440 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). In evaluating whether an employee exhausted administrative remedies, “we consider whether the complainant made a good faith effort to comply with the regulations and, particularly, to provide all the relevant, specific information available to him or her.” Id. (quotation marks omitted) Under the applicable regulations, to exhaust her administrative remedies, a federal employee must first consult with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory act to see if the matter can be informally resolved. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, the employee must file a formal complaint with the agency. See id. § 1614.106(a). The complaint must contain a signed statement from the employee that is “sufficiently precise . . . 9 to describe generally the action(s) or practice(s) that form the basis of the complaint.” Id. § 1614.106(c). A review of Andrews-Willmann’s EEO documentation reflects that Andrews-Willmann did not provide relevant, specific information to the Treasury Department indicating that she had been passed over for promotion in retaliation for her prior EEO complaints. The only reference Andrews-Willmann made at the administrative level to promotions appeared in a May 6, 2004 handwritten clarification of her EEO complaint. In the clarification, Andrews-Willmann stated that she had not received any interviews for GS-7 grade positions since her demotion in 1996, despite the fact that she had a Masters degree and was qualified for GS-9 grade positions. However, this one sentence, devoid of any information regarding specific positions or promotional opportunities, was insufficient to put the government on notice of a failure-to-promote claim. Furthermore, during the administrative process, the Treasury Department identified from Andrews-Willmann’s complaint five alleged retaliatory acts of harassment, none of which involved a failure to promote. Andrews-Willmann was given an opportunity to object to the claims identified, but did not. Because Andrews-Willmann failed to present a retaliatory failure-topromote claim in her EEO complaint, the agency did not investigate or develop a factual record on such a claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 10 concluding that Andrews-Willmann failed to exhaust her failure-to-promote claim.