context: Plaintiffs assertion that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement by sending supplemental letters to Kielt is unpersuasive. Indeed, "[c]ourts have rejected the argument that allegations made to EEOC officers but not included in the actual charge should be deemed 'reason ably related' to the charge." Further, because only the charge is forwarded to the employer, "courts will not consider" claims presented in separate documents when determining whether administrative remedies have been exhausted.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 196 F.3d 699, 702
citation_a.parenthetical: plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where the EEOC charge did not include the claim, even though the claim was described in an EEOC intake questionnaire
citation_a.sentence: Sussle v. Sirina Prot. Sys. Corp., 269 F.Supp.2d 285, 315 (S.D.N.Y.2003); see also Novitsky v. Am. Consulting Eng’rs, LLC, 196 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir.1999) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where the EEOC charge did not include the claim, even though the claim was described in an EEOC intake questionnaire); cf. Morris v. David Lerner Assocs., 680 F.Supp.2d 430, 437 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (allegations in letter physically attached to the EEOC charge were reasonably related to subsequent claims brought in federal court as evidenced by EEOC’s explicit reference to these allegations in the right to sue letter).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 680 F.Supp.2d 430, 437
citation_b.parenthetical: allegations in letter physically attached to the EEOC charge were reasonably related to subsequent claims brought in federal court as evidenced by EEOC's explicit reference to these allegations in the right to sue letter
citation_b.sentence: Sussle v. Sirina Prot. Sys. Corp., 269 F.Supp.2d 285, 315 (S.D.N.Y.2003); see also Novitsky v. Am. Consulting Eng’rs, LLC, 196 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir.1999) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where the EEOC charge did not include the claim, even though the claim was described in an EEOC intake questionnaire); cf. Morris v. David Lerner Assocs., 680 F.Supp.2d 430, 437 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (allegations in letter physically attached to the EEOC charge were reasonably related to subsequent claims brought in federal court as evidenced by EEOC’s explicit reference to these allegations in the right to sue letter).