Houston v. Army Fleet Services, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding plaintiff’s retaliation claim was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the allegedly retaliatory conduct occurred before the charge but was different than the facts alleged in the charge
• “The starting point for determining the permissible scope of the judicial complaint is the EEOC charge and investigation. The crucial element of a charge of discrimination is the factual statement contained therein.”
• “[A] charging party’s failure to check the appropriate box on the EEOC charge of discrimination form indicating what he believes to be the basis for the discrimination (i.e. race, color, sex, disability, retaliation, national origin, age, or religion
• “If, however, the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial EEOC charge is filed, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim.”
• “[W]hen a retaliation claim is based on adverse actions taken against the employee after the initial EEOC charge is filed, it can be said that the retaliation claim grows out of a properly filed employment discrimination charge . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).