©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2025 | 91 requirement, the Eleventh Circuit has held that ‘a ‘plaintiff's judicial complaint is limited by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.’”701 The court examined the charge and found that it discussed facts relevant to plaintiff’s salary before becoming Chair.702 Accordingly, the court found that the EEOC would have had an opportunity to investigate the employer’s alleged discriminatory practices as they related to plaintiff’s entire compensation, not just his compensation as Chair: “Excluding a claim related to [plaintiff’s] base salary because he used the phrase ‘salary as Chair’ in his EEOC charge would be to allow ‘procedural technicalities to bar claims,’ something the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned against.703 However, in Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc.,704 the court limited the scope of the EEOC’s case based on what was alleged in a charge. In that case, a Customer Service Associate for a technology company alleged a host of discrimination claims against his employer, including various wage discrimination claims. The employer argued that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some of those claims. The court acknowledged that “[t]he scope of the plaintiff's court action depends on the scope of the EEOC charge and investigation.”705 The charge specified “equal pay” as the basis for plaintiff’s discrimination complaint, but did not specify whether the discrimination was based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Accordingly, the court held that although plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his equal pay allegations, he had not done so to the extent they were based on race discrimination: “By contrast, with respect to the seventh cause of action, it appears to be based upon the allegations concerning equal pay and retaliation. On those grounds, [plaintiff] did not fail to exhaust, however, to the extent he now tries to base this upon theories of race discrimination and harassment, those, he failed to exhaust.”706 701 Id. (quoting Gregory v. Ga. Dep't of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2004)). 702 Id. at *7 (“Language throughout [plaintiff’s] EEOC charge makes clear that his discrimination claim concerns his overall salary— base salary plus $14,400 chair compensation, not simply his $14,400 chair compensation.”). 703 Id. (quoting Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1280). 704 Winns v. Exela Enter. Solutions, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-06762-YGR, 2022 WL 4094137 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2022). 705 Id. at *5. 706 Id. at *6. See also EEOC v. Denton Cnty., No. 4:17-cv-614, 2018 WL 4951990, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2018) (“The determination indicates that the EEOC investigation focused on wage disparity, which reasonably grew out of the charge of discrimination where [charging party] also complained of unequal pay. Neither the charge of discrimination nor the EEOC determination even state that [charging party] was terminated, which is the adverse employment action alleged for both her Title VII claim for retaliation and claim that she was treated less favorably, much less do these documents mention any of the factual allegations to support her claims.”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4