Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Liz Zhang, a tenured biology professor employed by the University of Texas at Dallas, sued UTD under Title VII for race, sex, and national-origin discrimination and retaliation. Her September 2023 EEOC charge alleged that department heads discriminated and retaliated against her after she defended colleagues whom she believed had suffered discriminatory treatment and complained about a UTD dean. She later supplemented the charge with allegations supporting a sex-discrimination claim based on a pay disparity between her and professor Michael Zhang.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims in Zhang’s Second Amended Complaint except the disparate-pay claim. The magistrate judge concluded that retaliation claims based on conduct before the September 2023 charge were untimely and that claims based on later conduct were unexhausted. After the report issued, Zhang filed an April 2025 EEOC charge alleging that UTD administrators and department heads had retaliated against her from November 2023 onward for filing the September 2023 EEOC charge and an internal UTD complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, granted UTD’s dismissal motion in part, and denied it as to Zhang’s Title VII sex-discrimination claim based on disparate pay. It dismissed with prejudice every other discrimination claim and all retaliation claims pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint, including the pre-September 2023 retaliation claims as untimely and the post-charge retaliation claims as unexhausted and inadequately pleaded.
The court rejected Zhang’s argument that discussing later retaliatory acts during an EEOC mediation exhausted those claims. The scope of exhaustion depended on the investigation reasonably expected to grow from her charge, and communications with an EEOC mediator did not constitute administrative exhaustion. The court also held that Zhang could not challenge the magistrate judge’s analysis using the previously unpleaded theory that the later conduct was retaliation for her September 2023 filings.
The court nevertheless granted Zhang limited leave to file a Third Amended Complaint alleging that UTD administrators and department heads retaliated against her from November 2023 to the present for filing her September 2023 EEOC charge and internal complaint, as asserted in her April 2025 charge. It found no bad faith, undue prejudice, or apparent futility, particularly because no scheduling order had been entered and discovery remained available. The separate motion for leave to amend was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Zhang’s Title VII disparate-pay claim against UTD survived the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Information disclosed during EEOC mediation did not expand the charge or independently exhaust claims based on later retaliatory conduct.
- Although the retaliation claims in the operative complaint were dismissed with prejudice, Zhang received limited leave to plead a newly exhausted retaliation theory arising from her September 2023 EEOC and internal complaints.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that employees should formally include later retaliation allegations in an EEOC charge rather than rely on mediation discussions or other informal communications with agency personnel. Courts assess exhaustion by examining the charge and the investigation reasonably expected to grow from it.
It also illustrates that dismissal with prejudice of claims in an operative complaint does not necessarily foreclose a distinct, subsequently exhausted theory. Here, the court permitted a narrow amendment because the new retaliation theory had been presented in a later EEOC charge and the case had not progressed to a scheduling order or discovery deadline.