A Harrisonburg U.S. District Court refuses to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination complaint, despite defendant school board’s assertion that plaintiff’s filings with the EEOC do not constitute an adequate and timely charge; assuming that plaintiff can prove the EEOC received the letter attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court finds he has filed an adequate and timely charge with the EEOC as to both alleged acts of discrimination.
Plaintiff’s June 1, 2006, letter fulfills the ADEA’s charge requirement. The letter names McQuain as the superintendent of the Augusta County schools as the prospective defendant and alleges discrimination in hiring. Though the letter does not specifically refer to age discrimination, it does note that defendants had previously promoted a younger person at plaintiff’s expense, and states that he has decided to bring his current claim after the same younger person received a position that defendant had sought. The letter’s request that the EEOC investigate the matter can be reasonably construed as a request that the EEOC take remedial action. The court finds that the June 1, 2006 letter, if defendant proves the EEOC received it, fulfills the ADEA’s charge requirement and accordingly denies defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the alleged Dec. 9, 2005 incident.
Further, since the June 9, 2006 incident is reasonably related to the factual allegations in the charge, the court finds that plaintiff may present this claim. The court finds the alleged discriminatory act on June 9, 2006, falls within the scope of the administrative investigation that could reasonably be expected to follow plaintiff’s charge of discrimination.
Hill v. Augusta County School Board (Wilson, J.) No. 5:08cv00061, April 17, 2009; USDC at Harrisonburg, Va. VLW 009-3-208, 7 pp.