Opinion ID: 1924825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's EEOC Claim

Text: On May 12, 1997, appellant filed a charge against Acacia with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [9] On July 31, 1997, the EEOC dismissed that charge, concluding that it would not be able to prove that [appellant was] discriminated against because of [her] sex (female) and in retaliation for protesting actions made unlawful by Title VII. It sent a right-to-sue letter to appellant which pointed out that she had been made aware of [the pending] reorganization and potential job elimination, and [that she had been] offered an alternative position prior to [her] complaint to Respondent [Acacia]. Furthermore, according to the letter, four other employees, three males and one female, lost their jobs as a result of the reorganization. The letter also stated that appellant's charge was untimely because she could provide no specific incidents of sexual harassment that occurred after 1995.