In Perkins v. City of Minneapolis, Byron Perkins, a public works employee with the City of Minneapolis was, for undisclosed reasons, suspended for two weeks and banned from applying for other positions at the City for three years. During the ban, Perkins obtained specialized certifications and enrolled in college coursework.  Once the ban expired he applied for 11 different positions but was never selected. He filed suit alleging failure to promote and harassment based on his race and retaliation for participating in  “protected activity.” The City denied  the allegations and moved for dismissal through a  judgment on the pleadings.

The United State District Court for Minnesota dismissed Perkins’ harassment claim for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court found the EEOC charge had not alleged a claim for harassment or described any facts from which harassment could be inferred. The court reaffirmed that claims not included in an EEOC charge cannot later be raised in court. The court explained that while the charge need not state the exact claim, it must include allegations “reasonably related” to those presented in court. Additionally, since more than 180 days had passed since the alleged discrimination, Perkins was time-barred from correcting any deficiencies in the EEOC charge.

In dismissing the failure to promote claim, the court found Perkins’  compliant could plausibly support the first three elements as Perkins: (1) was a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the positions and (3) was not selected. However, he did not provide any facts at all from which the court could even plausibly conclude others who were selected  were similarly situated but not part of a protected group.

Similarly, the claim of retaliation was dismissed because Perkins failed to identify any facts that would suggest the City’s decision was related to his alleged protected activity of reporting harassment to Human Resources nor did he provide dates and times that would establish a temporal proximity between his reports and the hiring decisions. In short, the retaliation was too speculative.

In previous decisions we have seen claims fail due to the speculative nature. This case shows how administrative remedies provide a measure of protection to employers as they establish foundational requirements to sustain a claim. An employer’s response at the administrative stage can potentially avoid costly court proceedings. If you or your organization need assistance responding to administrative charges of discrimination,  contact Wiley Reber Law for advice that works.