Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohammed Boujaer, a practicing Muslim of African descent, worked as a deployment technician at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth location from February 2022 until March 2024. Although Acara Solutions formally paid him, Boujaer alleged that Lockheed managers assigned and supervised his work, controlled his schedule, and could terminate his assignment.
Boujaer alleged that Lockheed denied him training, coaching, overtime, security-clearance sponsorship, and work assignments afforded to employees outside his protected classes. He also alleged that Lockheed directed Acara to terminate him for purported performance problems despite his positive feedback and the absence of prior warnings or documented concerns. After his termination, Boujaer filed an EEOC charge alleging national-origin and religious discrimination, unequal treatment, denial of opportunities, and pretextual termination, and later received a right-to-sue notice.
Lockheed moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss only the allegations concerning denial of training and coaching, preferential work assignments, and heightened scrutiny. It argued that Boujaer had not administratively exhausted those matters because his EEOC charge did not expressly identify them.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Lockheed’s motion for partial dismissal. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s liberal approach to construing EEOC charges, the court explained that a Title VII lawsuit may encompass claims within the scope of an EEOC investigation that could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge. A claimant need not use particular words or check a particular box if the charge’s factual substance would reasonably prompt the relevant investigation.
Boujaer’s statements about repeatedly being denied security-clearance sponsorship could reasonably have led the EEOC to examine whether he was denied opportunities to obtain additional qualifications, including training and coaching. His allegations that employees outside his protected classes received overtime and other preferential treatment could likewise have prompted an investigation into preferential assignments.
The court also concluded that Boujaer’s heightened-scrutiny allegation merely elaborated on the differential treatment described in his charge. Because all three challenged categories were reasonable outgrowths of the charge, the court held that they were administratively exhausted and within the permissible scope of the lawsuit.
Key Takeaways
- An EEOC charge is construed according to its factual substance, not solely its labels or precise terminology.
- Title VII allegations are exhausted when they fall within an investigation that could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge.
- Boujaer’s allegations concerning training and coaching, preferential assignments, and heightened scrutiny survived Lockheed’s exhaustion-based motion to dismiss.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that omissions of specific terms from an EEOC charge do not necessarily bar related Title VII allegations. Courts may permit later allegations that elaborate on unequal treatment described in the charge when a reasonable EEOC investigation would have encompassed them.
The ruling addressed administrative exhaustion at the pleading stage; it did not decide whether discrimination occurred or whether Boujaer will ultimately prevail on the merits.