ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has allowed a woman to proceed with claims alleging race, color and sex discrimination against St. Mary’s Hospital, while dismissing her age-discrimination claim because it was not included in her administrative discrimination charge.
In an opinion, memorandum and order dated July 30, U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey permitted Roslyn Howard to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed that process be issued on her remaining claims. The lawsuit will be served on SSM Health Care St. Louis, doing business as SSM Health St. Mary’s Hospital-St. Louis.
“Having reviewed the Complaint, the Charge of Discrimination, and the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, the Court determines that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims against Defendant for race, color and gender (sex) discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She may also pursue her claims for bullying/physical assault,” Autrey wrote in the opinion. “The Court will issue service on Defendant as to these claims. Plaintiff’s claims for age discrimination, however, will be dismissed, as they are not “like or reasonably related” to those in her Charge of Discrimination.”
Howard filed the action alleging employment discrimination by her employer based on race, color, gender and age.
Her complaint also asserted claims involving failure to promote, a hostile work environment or harassment, retaliation, and bullying or physical assault.
The court found that Howard had stated plausible claims for race, color and gender, or sex, discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court also ruled that she may pursue her claims for bullying or physical assault.
However, the court dismissed Howard’s age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Autrey wrote that Howard had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies on that claim because age discrimination was not alleged in the charge she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The court had previously ordered Howard on July 14 to file a copy of her EEOC Charge of Discrimination. She filed that document on July 23.
In the charge, Howard identified race, color and gender as the bases for discrimination at St. Mary’s Hospital. She also said she had faced retaliation after complaining about workplace discrimination and described harassment or a hostile work environment involving her direct supervisor.
But the EEOC charge did not allege discrimination because of age, according to the order.
The court said claims raised in a lawsuit must be like or reasonably related to the claims set out in an administrative charge, or they may be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The order noted that an EEOC complaint does not have to state a precise legal claim, but it must provide information that gives an employer notice of the subject matter of the charge and generally identifies the basis for the claim.
Autrey concluded that Howard’s age-discrimination allegations were not like or reasonably related to the claims in her charge. A separate order of partial dismissal was to accompany the opinion.
The court granted Howard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, waiving the filing fee. It also ordered the clerk to issue process on the remaining claims in the lawsuit.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:26-cv-01090
