Elena Mukhina v. Walmart, Inc.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides workers a private right of action for employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Before bringing their claims in court, workers must first bring a charge alleging discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This Court has long recognized that Title VII proceedings should not be onerous. It has acknowledged, for instance, that discrimination can present itself in a panoply of manners, including targeting a protected class’s characteristics instead of the class itself. Accordingly, multiple circuits have held that discrimination based on a foreign language can constitute discrimination based on national origin. This Court has also held that EEOC documents are construed liberally, erring in favor of workers. Many circuits have, to that end, held that an EEOC intake form can constitute a charge for purposes of administrative exhaustion even when workers also file a timely formal charge. And most circuits have held that it is the facts alleged in a charge—instead of any specific label—that determine whether it exhausts a claim. The questions presented are as follows.

1. Can harassment targeting a person’s English language proficiency amount to national-origin discrimination under Title VII?

2. To what extent should courts consider documents other than a formal EEOC charge for purposes of Title VII administrative exhaustion?

3. Must workers specifically designate in an EEOC charge the type of discrimination alleged to exhaust a Title VII claim for that type of discrimination?