## Facts

- Vonda Clark worked as a line technician at a Kraft Foods plant.
- After her employment ended, Clark filed a charge with the EEOC focused on sexual harassment and retaliation.
- The charge also asserted that women on her line were pressured into lower-paying positions.
- Clark alleged she was terminated shortly after she refused to take a lower-paying position.
- After the EEOC process, Clark filed a Title VII lawsuit in federal court alleging intentional sex discrimination (disparate treatment) in job assignments, pay-related position changes, and termination, rather than pursuing a sexual-harassment claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Clark exhausted administrative remedies for a Title VII disparate-treatment sex discrimination claim when her EEOC charge primarily alleged sexual harassment and retaliation but included facts suggesting sex-based disparities in job placement and discharge.
2. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the employer on the ground that the disparate-treatment theory fell outside the scope of the EEOC charge.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Kraft and remanded.
- The court held Clark’s disparate-treatment claim was within the scope of what an EEOC investigation could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge.
- The court rejected a narrow, label-focused approach and relied on the factual allegations in the charge regarding pressure on women to accept lower-paying positions and Clark’s termination after refusing.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII civil action is limited to claims within “the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
- Exhaustion does not require the EEOC charge to use the same legal theory terms later pleaded in court; the controlling inquiry is whether the facts alleged would reasonably prompt investigation of the later-asserted discrimination type.
- EEOC charges are construed liberally because they are often drafted by nonlawyers, and exhaustion is not applied in a hyper-technical manner.

## Conclusion

Because Clark’s EEOC charge included factual allegations indicating sex-based pressure into lower-paying positions and a discharge linked to refusing such a position, the Fifth Circuit held her disparate-treatment claim was administratively exhausted and reinstated it for further proceedings.


Clark v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 18 F.3d 1278 (5th Cir. 1994)