Gladys Gregory v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff’s claims for retaliation were not administratively barred, despite her failure to check the appropriate box
• holding that an EEOC charge alleging discriminatory discharge “could have reasonably been extended to encompass a claim for retaliation”
• holding that plaintiff’s retaliation claims were not barred under this circuit’s liberal EEO charge strictures
• holding that if a claim alleged in a lawsuit is within the scope of the EEOC investigation that could reasonably be expected to grow out of the administrative charge, the claim is sufficiently preserved
• holding that although the plaintiff had not checked the retaliation box on the document she filed with the EEOC, “the exhaustion requirement was nonetheless satisfied” because the EEOC’s “investigation ... would have reasonably uncovered any evidence of retaliation.”
• noting that courts should be “extremely reluctant to allow procedural technicalities to bar claims brought under Title VII”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).