Opinion ID: 562040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the Retaliation Claim

Text: 29 The district court found that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist over Owens' claim that the Housing Authority had retaliated against her by refusing to plea bargain her disciplinary charges. The district court reasoned first that since the charges had not been filed with the EEOC before being presented to the district court, and were not otherwise reasonably related to the allegations in the complaint that was filed with the EEOC, it could not hear the retaliation claim under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626(d). 3 See Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 743 F.2d 963, 967 (2d Cir.1984). 30 It is undisputed that this claim of retaliation arises out of incidents subsequent to the filing of the EEOC complaint. Our prior rulings make clear, however, that her retaliation claim must nonetheless be considered reasonably related to the complaint she filed with the EEOC. 31 We have previously held that when an employee brings a claim alleging retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC, the retaliation claim is deemed reasonably related to the original EEOC filing. In such a case, the allegations of retaliation are seen as stemming from the earlier discriminatory incident, including plaintiff's attempt to vindicate her federal rights against discrimination. The retaliation claim may thus be heard notwithstanding plaintiff's failure to state it in a separate complaint filed with the EEOC. 32 In Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 645 F.2d 127 (2d Cir.1981), we held that plaintiff's claim that he was transferred out of the country in retaliation for his EEOC complaint alleging age discrimination in the failure to promote him was reasonably related to the complaint. See also Kirkland v. Buffalo Board of Education, 622 F.2d 1066 (2d Cir.1980) (per curiam ). 33 We note that Halpert v. Wertheim & Co., Inc., 81 F.R.D. 734 (S.D.N.Y.1979), on which the district court relied, was decided prior to our adoption of the reasonable relationship test in Kirkland, supra. Miller v. International Tel. & Tel. Co., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 148, 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), also relied upon by the district court, is inapposite. Miller holds only that a failure to rehire claim is not reasonably related to a claim based on an earlier dismissal. Miller in no way alters the rule set forth in Goodman and Kirkland that a claim alleging retaliation for an employee's filing of charges with the EEOC is reasonably related to that complaint. 34 Owens alleges that the Housing Authority retaliated against her for filing with the EEOC by refusing to plea bargain her disciplinary charges. Since her claim is reasonably related to her EEOC filing, the district court should have found subject matter jurisdiction over the retaliation claim. 35 On appeal, the Housing Authority does not press the argument that the claim is not reasonably related to the EEOC complaint; rather, it argues that a failure to plea bargain does not constitute an adverse employment action, within the meaning of the ADEA. See, e.g., Grant v. Bethlehem Steel, 622 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1989) (Title VII) (an employment action or actions disadvantaging persons engaged in protected activities). Whether this is so, however, should be decided in the first instance by the district court, upon an appropriate motion following remand. 36 In sum, Owens is not precluded by the state court ruling on misconduct from proving her qualification for her job on her ADEA claim, and the district court should have exercised subject matter jurisdiction over Owens' claim of retaliation. We therefore vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment, dismiss the cross appeal, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.