Employers Don’t Have a Crystal Ball. EEOC Charges Still Matter.

 

 

HR professionals do not have a crystal ball. When an employee files an EEOC charge, no employer can predict how that dispute might later be reframed in a lawsuit or expanded with new legal theories.

A recent Fourth Circuit decision recognizes that reality, while still reinforcing something practical for employers and HR teams alike: the EEOC charge plays a meaningful role in defining the case that follows.

---

TL;DR: The Fourth Circuit dismissed an employee’s Title VII claims, without prejudice, because the lawsuit went well beyond what was actually alleged in the EEOC charge. Retaliation and job-related claims were out because they were never raised with the EEOC. The case does not expect employers to predict future lawsuits, but it does reinforce why HR should respond precisely to the charge while still investigating thoroughly.

📄 Read the Fourth Circuit’s decision here.

---

What This Case Is – and Is Not – About

This decision is easy to misread, so it is worth being clear about what it does not say.

It does not suggest that employers should take EEOC charges lightly. It does not encourage narrow investigations. And it certainly does not give HR a green light to ignore issues uncovered during a workplace review.

HR should still investigate promptly, take complaints seriously, address misconduct, and guard carefully against retaliation, regardless of how narrowly a charge is written.

What the court addressed was something more limited and more realistic.

The Lawsuit Went Well Beyond What the EEOC Charge Alleged

The employee’s EEOC charge described her as a Ph.D. student and focused on alleged harassment by a professor tied to her academic program and graduation. The charge did not allege retaliation. It did not describe adverse employment actions tied to a separate job. And it did not suggest that she had been pushed out of employment.

When the case later reached court, the lawsuit told a much broader story. It added claims that the employer retaliated against her, treated her differently in connection with work as a research assistant, and effectively forced her out, which she characterized as constructive discharge. None of those theories appeared in the EEOC charge.

The Fourth Circuit drew a clear line. Title VII requires employees to raise their claims with the EEOC first, and courts will not fill in gaps or assume allegations that were never presented. While employees get some flexibility in how EEOC charges are drafted, that flexibility does not extend to bringing entirely new claims, new job-related allegations, or new legal theories for the first time in court.

Because the lawsuit expanded well beyond what the EEOC was asked to investigate, the court dismissed those claims, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The decision did not turn on whether the employer handled the situation well or poorly. It turned on what the employee chose to put, and not put, in the EEOC charge.

Just as important for HR teams, the court did not suggest that the employer should have anticipated these expanded theories or addressed them in advance. The boundaries of the case were set by the charge itself.

Why This Still Matters to HR – Not Just Lawyers

At first glance, this may sound like a technical ruling that mostly helps lawyers. But there are real, practical implications for HR when the takeaway is framed correctly.

Taking a charge seriously does not mean expanding it. HR can investigate broadly, fix problems, and address workplace concerns without rewriting the employee’s claims for them. Courts draw a line between a thorough internal response and legally expanding the scope of the charge.

Precision protects good HR processes. When HR responds to what is actually alleged and documents that response clearly, the employer preserves defenses later without cutting corners internally. This is not about doing less. It is about being careful.

Retaliation prevention still applies, but retaliation claims are not automatic. HR should always assume retaliation risk exists and manage it accordingly. Legally, however, retaliation claims still need to be raised and supported in the EEOC charge. Courts will not assume retaliation where the charge is silent.

The Bottom Line

This decision does not reward employers for clairvoyance. It rewards employers who take EEOC charges seriously, investigate responsibly, and respond carefully, without expanding the case beyond what the employee actually raised.

For HR teams, that is not gamesmanship. It is good process, and courts continue to recognize it.