Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works

• Citation: 21 F.3d 218
• Decision Date: 05 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-2198,93-2198
• Parties: 64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 622, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,991 Shirley A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 218

21 F.3d 218

64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 622,

64 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,991

Shirley A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS, Appellee.

No. 93-2198.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1993.

Decided April 6, 1994.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1994.

Ronald Wilson, West Memphis, AR, argued, for appellant.

Kathlyn Graves, Little Rock, AR, argued (Stuart Jackson, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Shirley A. Williams appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court ¹ for the Eastern District of Arkansas in favor of her employer Little Rock Municipal Water Works (Water Works). 155 F.R.D. 188. The district court granted Water Works' motion for summary judgment and denied Williams leave to amend her complaint and her request for a continuance. For reversal, Williams argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend her complaint, erred in finding that she failed to state claims under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, and erred in concluding that her claim of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. (Title VII), should be dismissed because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Water Works, a municipal agency, employed Williams, an African-American female, in May 1972 as a Mail Clerk. During her tenure at Water Works, Williams was promoted several times. In 1974 she was promoted to the position of Customer Service Clerk. She was promoted to Cashier in March 1978, promoted again to Computer Operator Trainee in April 1982, and to Computer Operator in 1984. However, in 1987 Williams was denied a promotion she had requested. In response, on January 26, 1987, Williams filed a charge with the EEOC alleging race discrimination in the denial of a pay raise and promotion in violation of Title VII. The EEOC issued a determination letter that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Water Works had violated Title VII. The EEOC issued Williams notice of the right to sue on her complaint, but Williams opted not to take legal action against Water Works at that time.

In October 1990 Williams was denied a merit raise and promotion to the position of Administrative Assistant to the Commercial Manager based on an evaluation by her immediate supervisor that another candidate was more qualified for the position. In response, Williams filed a second EEOC charge and accompanying affidavit alleging that she had been denied the promotion and merit raise in retaliation for filing the 1987 EEOC charge. The EEOC issued a determination that this second EEOC charge was without merit. The EEOC issued Williams notice of her right to sue. Williams filed suit pro se in federal district court. Her judicial complaint alleged that Water Works maintained racially discriminatory job classifications, refused to hire African-Americans, maintained racially discriminatory employment practices and policies, and wrongfully terminated African-Americans. Williams alleged that Water Works' conduct violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983. Williams attached to her complaint the 1990 EEOC charge which alleged that Williams was denied a promotion in retaliation for filing the 1987 charge of discrimination.

Water Works moved for partial summary judgment in January 1993 claiming that Williams failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, and that the allegations of race discrimination set forth in Williams' complaint were beyond the scope of her EEOC complaint which alleged only retaliation, and, thus, should be dismissed. Subsequently, Williams requested leave to amend her complaint and a continuance in March 1993. Williams' amendment sought to add new defendants, allege "specific allegations of policy or custom," and add allegations of a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the 1991 Act). Williams also requested a continuance until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 968 F.2d 427 (5th Cir.1992) (Landgraf ), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1250, 122 L.Ed.2d 649 (1993) and the companion case, Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 973 F.2d 490 (6th Cir.1992), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1250, 122 L.Ed.2d 649 (1993), reviewing the retroactive application of the 1991 Act.

The district court granted Water Works' motion for partial summary judgment and denied Williams' request to amend her complaint and request for a continuance. Williams' remaining Title VII claim of retaliation was tried to the district court and judgment was entered in favor of Water Works. Williams appeals the district court's decision granting partial summary judgment to Water Works and denying her request to amend her complaint and for a continuance. ²

Williams first argues that the district court erred in granting Water Works' motion for summary judgment as to Williams' race discrimination claims under Title VII. In its motion, Water Works requested that the district court limit Williams' Title VII claims to retaliation because Williams had only alleged retaliation in her 1990 EEOC charge. Water Works argued that Williams could not proceed on the Title VII race discrimination claim alleged in her judicial complaint because she failed to allege race discrimination in her 1990 EEOC charge. Williams contends that her race discrimination claim was within the scope of her 1990 EEOC charge and, thus, the district court erred in precluding her from proceeding on her theory of race discrimination. Williams also contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to her claims under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983. Williams further argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her request to amend her complaint and for a continuance. We disagree with all of these contentions.

I. SCOPE OF EEOC CHARGE

The gist of the Title VII claims presented in Williams' judicial complaint is that she and other African-Americans employed by Water Works were discriminated against based on race as to the terms and conditions of their employment. The district court dismissed these claims because Williams did not raise them in her 1990 EEOC charge.

Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a). However, Title VII establishes an administrative procedure which a complaining employee must follow before filing a lawsuit in federal court. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is central to Title VII's statutory scheme because it provides the EEOC the first opportunity to investigate discriminatory practices and enables it to perform its roles of obtaining voluntary compliance and promoting conciliatory efforts. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 180-81, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2374-75, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989). To exhaust administrative remedies an individual must: (1) timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC setting forth the facts and nature of the charge and (2) receive notice of the right to sue. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(b), (c), (e). Once an individual receives notice of the right to sue, she has 90 days in which to file suit. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). In the present case, it is undisputed that Williams did not file suit within 90 days of receiving notice of the right to sue on her January 1987 EEOC charge alleging race discrimination. For that reason, claims based on events which prompted Williams' first EEOC charge are barred by statute.

It is similarly undisputed that Williams' second EEOC charge filed in 1990, upon which Williams filed suit, makes no reference to race discrimination but is confined to retaliation. However, Williams contends that her race discrimination claims are "like or reasonably related" to the retaliation claim that was timely brought and are within the scope of her retaliation claim. A plaintiff will be deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies as to allegations contained in a judicial complaint that are like or reasonably related to the substance of charges timely brought before the EEOC. E.g., Anderson v. Block, 807 F.2d 145, 148 (8th Cir.1986) (citing Ong v. Cleland, 642 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir.1981)); see also Wentz v. Maryland Casualty Co., 869 F.2d 1153, 1154 (8th Cir.1989) (ADEA).

Williams contends that her allegations of race discrimination are directly related to her allegations of retaliation by Water Works contained in the 1990 EEOC charge. Williams maintains that, but for the 1987 EEOC charge alleging race discrimination, the 1990 EEOC charge of retaliation would not have been necessary. Williams also argues that both the race discrimination and retaliation charges are grounded in Water Works' failure to promote and award her a pay raise and, thus, the two charges must be construed together in assessing the permissible scope of her judicial complaint.

In the particulars of her 1990 EEOC charge, Williams complained of retaliation. Williams failed to allege any facts in the narrative section of her charge which raise the issue of race discrimination. To the contrary, Williams' charge was highly specific. Williams stated "I have been denied a promotion and a merit raise as of October 3, 1990, because I filed a previous charge of discrimination. I believe I am being retaliated against for filing the charge in violation of Title VII." The affidavit Williams provided to the EEOC in support of her 1990 EEOC charge mentions only two specific instances of alleged misconduct and states "I believe I have been passed over for promotion and did not receive a merit raise because I filed the previous charge of discrimination." On the...