Mr. Liggett's claim that he was denied promotions is beyond the scope of this action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies since he did not raise denial of promotions in his 2002 EEOC complaints. A claimant under Title VII must exhaust his administrative remedies by first raising his claim before the EEOC. Sloop v. Mem'l Mission Hosp. Inc., 198 F.3d 147, 148. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, 288 F.3d 124 (4th Cir.2002), the EEOC charge defines the scope of the plaintiff's right to institute a civil suit. Id. at 132 (quoting Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 202 F.3d 234, 247 (4th Cir.2000). “... [T]he scope of the civil action is confined only by the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination.” See id.
(quoting Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482, 491 (4th Cir.1981). The Fourth Circuit, and other district courts within the Fourth Circuit, have rejected a plaintiff's attempt to add additional claims to a judicial complaint where the administrative charge failed to encompass such claims. Taylor v. Virginia Union University, 193 F.3d 219, 239 (4th Cir.1999) (plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment fell outside the scope of an administrative complaint raising gender discrimination arising from a failure to promote claim); Miller v. Runyon, 88 F.Supp.2d 461 (M.D.N.C.2000) (failure to allege any harassing conduct by supervisors in his administrative complaint barred Plaintiff from raising a harassment claim in district court); Nicol v. Imagenatrix, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 744 (E.D.Va.1991) (holds that “the crucial element of a charge of discrimination is the factual statement contained therein.”) (quoting Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.1970)). In this case, Mr. Liggett filed complaints with the EEOC in both July 2002 and November 2002. Plaintiff does not raise the issue of denial of promotions in either the July 2002 or the November 2002 EEOC complaint. See
Pl.'s Opp. at Exs. 16-24. Although Plaintiff does state in his complaint filed in this Court, that as a result of the defendant's violation of Title VII, he has been damaged in several ways including being “denied promotions in his field,” he does not state that he alleged the denial of promotions in his 2002 EEOC complaints. Am. Compl. at 65. Furthermore, the final decision of the DLA makes no mention of a denial of promotions. See
Compl. at Ex. 1. The Court notes that Defendant does allege that he was denied promotions in his 1998 EEOC complaint, however, DLA issued its Final Agency Decision in regards to Mr. Liggett's 1998 EEOC complaint in August 2000. Mr. Liggett subsequently appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was transferred to this Court and ultimately dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore, the 1998 complaint does not define the scope of this complaint. Id.
at 6, 9. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's claim regarding denial of promotions because he failed to raise the issue in his 2002 EEOC complaints on which this complaint is based.