Marshall, Angela v. Fed Exprs Corp

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the substance of a claim “must fall within the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination”
• stating that “the substance of an ADA claim . . . must fall within the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination”
• noting that “[n]aturally every detail of the eventual complaint need not be presaged in the EEOC filing,” but finding plaintiff failed to exhaust wrongful termination claim where she failed to mention her termination
• \A vague or circumscribed . . . charge will not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for claims it does not fairly embrace.\
• “Naturally every detail of the eventual complaint need not be presaged in the EEO[] filing”
• “Before bringing suit in federal court, ADA plaintiffs, like those under Title VII, must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an EEOC charge and giving that agency a chance to act on it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).