Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 270

ORDER adopting 227 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The objections stated in Defendant's Objections To Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [# 228 ] are OVERRULED. The defendant's Motion to Dismiss Failure to Train Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [# 207 ] is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/27/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Failure to Train Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [#207]1 filed
March 14, 2013; and (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
[#227] filed April 4, 2013. The defendant filed objections [#228] to the recommendation.
I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and deny the motion
to dismiss.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed her pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
1

“[#207]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the defendant objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law.
The plaintiff, Kathleen Chytka, is a former employee of the defendant, Wright
Tree Service, Inc. In 2011, Wright Tree terminated Ms. Chytka’s employment. The
only claim still pending in this case is Ms. Chytka’s claim of gender discrimination based
on Wright Tree’s alleged failure to train her, part of her Fourth Claim for Relief. Ms.
Chytka alleges that Wright Tree discriminated against her by failing to train her to climb
trees during her employment as a Job Planner. In its motion to dismiss, Wright Tree
argues that this claim must be dismissed because Ms. Chytka did not exhaust her
administrative remedies on this claim.
Ms. Chytka filed a Charge of Discrimination [#207-1] with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in August of 2009. In her charge, Ms. Chytka addressed her
two applications for a promotion to General Foreman. After her second application for
this position, Ms. Chytka says she was told that she was not qualified for the position
because “I can’t train employees on how to climb and I don’t speak Spanish. We have
never had a General Foreman before who could speak Spanish.” Charge of
Discrimination [#207-1]. Wright Tree contends this statement does not reasonably
encompass Ms. Chytka’s claim that she was not provided with training based on her
gender. Generally, courts limit the scope of a Title VII claim to the matters raised in the
EEOC charge and the administrative investigation which reasonably would be expected
to follow from the charge. See, e.g., MacKenzie v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 414 F.3d
1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005); Jomes v. U.P.S., Inc., 502 F.3d 1176, 1187 (10th Cir.
2

2007). The magistrate judge concluded that Ms. Chytka’s EEOC charge reasonably
encompasses her claim of gender discrimination based on Wright Tree’s alleged failure
to train her how to climb trees.
In its objections [#228], Wright Tree argues that the magistrate judge erred in
concluding that the EEOC charge reasonably encompasses Ms. Chytka’s gender
discrimination claim. Wright Tree contends that an EEOC charge is sufficient to
preserve a claim only if the charge identifies specific facts that are the basis for the
claim asserted in a Title VII lawsuit. In the view of Wright Tree, an investigation of Ms.
Chytka’s gender discrimination claim would not reasonably be expected to follow from
the facts described in Ms. Chytka’s EEOC charge.
Having reviewed the defendant’s motion, the recommendation, the defendant’s
objections, and the applicable law, I find and conclude that the analysis and conclusions
of the magistrate judge are correct. Thus, I conclude that Ms. Chytka’s EEOC charge
was sufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies on her remaining claim of gender
discrimination based on a failure to train. On this basis, I agree with the magistrate
judge that the defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#227] filed
April 4, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Defendant’s Objections To Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge [#228] are OVERRULED; and

3

3. That the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Failure to Train Claim for Failure
to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [#207] filed March 14, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated August 27, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4