Holmes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

SHAROD HOLMES, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:23-CV-359-JEM

)

UNITED STATES STEEL )

CORPORATION, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 43]

filed on February 2, 2026. Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims asserted against

them. Plaintiff filed a response on April 2, 2026, and on April 30, 2026, Defendant filed a reply.

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Sharod Holmes filed a state court Complaint for claims

of employment discrimination and retaliation arising out of his employment with Defendant

United States Steel Corporation. Defendant then removed the case to federal court on October 18,

2023. The instant motion was filed on February 2, 2026, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are barred

and that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The parties have consented to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge

to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case. Therefore,

this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c).

I. Facts

Plaintiff Sharod Holmes, a Black male, was employed by Defendant United States Steel

Corporation from approximately May 20, 2012, until his termination on March 1, 2023. On

February 23, 2023, Defendant suspended Plaintiff for what it deemed to be several absences and

absence reporting-related violations that took place in January and February of 2023. Following a

hearing, Defendant then converted Plaintiff’s suspension to a termination.

After his termination, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging race discrimination and retaliation.

Regarding his race discrimination claim, Plaintiff stated in his charge: “I believe I was

discriminated against because of my race, Black.” Ex. 13 p. 3 [DE 44-13]. In support of his

retaliation charge, Plaintiff reported that in February 2023, he contacted a griever regarding the

status of payment for a grievance his former department filed and won. He was informed that the

human resources manager instead probed about Plaintiff’s job performance, and later that month

he was terminated. The grievance payment related to a successful 2019 grievance claim concerning

Defendant’s use of outside contractors for work that could have been performed by internal

laborers.

On June 27, 2023, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Determination and Notice of Rights and

Plaintiff filed the pending lawsuit, claiming race discrimination, hostile work environment, and

retaliation.

II. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that motions for summary judgment be

granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56 further requires the entry

of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against a party “who fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on

which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

(1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate – in fact, is mandated –

where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the movant must prevail as a matter of law.

In other words, the record must reveal that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.”

Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations and

quotations omitted).

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court

of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, that it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party may discharge its initial responsibility by simply “‘showing’ –

that is, pointing out to the district court – that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The moving party, if it chooses, may support

its motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other materials, and, if the moving party has

“produced sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there are no genuine issues for trial,”

then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that an issue of material fact exists. Becker

v. Tenenbaum-Hill Assoc., 914 F.2d 107, 110-11 (7th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); see also Hong

v. Child.’s Mem’l Hosp., 993 F.2d 1257, 1261 (7th Cir. 1993).

Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the non-moving party

cannot resist the motion and withstand summary judgment by merely resting on its pleadings. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Donovan v. City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 947 (7th Cir. 1994). Rule 56(e)

provides that “[i]f a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address

another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact

undisputed for purposes of the motion [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting

materials – including the facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it . . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), (3); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986).

Thus, to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact, the nonmoving party must “do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” but must “come forward with

‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (emphasis in

original).

In viewing the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe

all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all legitimate inferences in

favor of that party. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255; Srail v. Vill. of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940, 948

(7th Cir. 2009); NLFC, Inc. v. Devcom Mid-Am., Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 234 (7th Cir. 1995). A court’s

role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, to judge the credibility of witnesses, or to

determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of

triable fact. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50.

III. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race, subjected

him to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him. In support of his race discrimination

and hostile work environment claims, Plaintiff alleges numerous specific incidents of

discrimination and harassment. Defendant argues that most of Plaintiff’s claims are procedurally

barred because they have not been exhausted, and that it is entitled to judgment on the claims that

are not time-barred.

A. EEOC Exhaustion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims for racial discrimination, hostile work

environment, and retaliation for complaining about racially discriminatory conduct are

procedurally barred because they were not included in his EEOC charge. Plaintiff argues that the

specific acts of racial discrimination and harassment alleged in this case are not beyond the scope

of his EEOC charge.

“A plaintiff must file a timely charge with the EEOC encompassing the acts complained of

as a prerequisite to filing suit in federal court.” Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857, 863

(7th Cir. 1985) (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47 (1974)). Requiring a

plaintiff to first file with the EEOC “serves two purposes: affording the EEOC the opportunity to

settle the dispute between the employee and employer, and putting the employer on notice of the

charges against it.” Sitar v. Ind. DOT, 344 F.3d 720, 726 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). An

EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice

occurred. Roney v. Ill. DOT, 474 F.3d 455, 460-61 (7th Cir. 2007); U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

“[F]ailure to file timely with the EEOC is not an absolute jurisdictional bar, but rather a condition

precedent to suit. The time limit for filing with the EEOC may toll if plaintiffs are able to show an

equitable reason justifying their delay.” Shoemaker v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 172

F.3d 53 (7th Cir. 1998). Generally, a plaintiff proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17 (2024), cannot bring claims in a lawsuit that were not

included in their EEOC charge. See Cheek v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500

(7th Cir. 1994).

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit applies a liberal construction to EEOC

charges drafted by unrepresented laypersons. See, e.g., Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the

Circuit Court of Cook County, 804 F.3d 826, 831 (7th Cir. 2015); Farrell v. Butler Univ., 421 F.3d

609, 611 (7th Cir. 2015). EEOC charges completed by laypersons need not include “each and

every fact that combines to form the basis of each claim in [the] complaint.” Cheek, 31 F.3d at

500. However, a general charge of discrimination does not serve as a blank check to bring any and

all subsequent judicial claims. Cheek, 31 F.3d at 500-01; Hansboro v. Northwood Nursing Home,

832 F. Supp. 248, 251-52 (7th Cir. 1993). Instead, the relevant question is whether claims are “like

or reasonably related,” meaning (1) there is “a reasonable relationship between the allegations in

the charge and the claims in the complaint” and (2) “the claim in the complaint can be reasonably

expected to grow out of an EEOC investigation of the allegations in the charge.” Chaidez v. Ford

Motor Co., 937 F.3d 998, 1004 (7th Cir. 2019). To satisfy the “like or reasonably related” standard,

there must be a factual relationship between the charge and the complaint. Id. at 1005; McKenzie

v. Illinois DOT, 92 F.3d 473, 481 (7th Cir. 1996); Cheek, 31 F.3d at 501. “The relevant claim and

the EEOC charge must, at a minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same

individuals.” Huri, 804 F.3d at 831-32. Because an employer can discriminate in numerous ways,

a general charge of discrimination and a subsequent complaint are not necessarily related simply

because they both assert the same category of discrimination (e.g., race or sex). See Chaidez, F.3d

998; see also Cheek, 31 F.3d 497.

i. Race Discrimination

Plaintiff’s EEOC charge stated: “I believe I was discriminated against because of my race,

Black.” Def. Ex. 13 p. 3 [DE 44-13]. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s statement is insufficient to

exhaust the claims in his complaint because the EEOC charge did not indicate that the racial

discrimination was ongoing or mention any specific instance of race discrimination. Plaintiff

argues that the charge is sufficient to meet the timeliness requirements. He argues that the charge

clearly identified race discrimination as his reason for filing and generally alleged that he had been

subjected to unlawful treatment because of his race. He emphasizes that it was filed without the

assistance of counsel.

“Courts review the scope of an EEOC charge liberally,” Huri, 804 F.3d at 831, and the

determination of “whether an EEOC charge encompasses the claims in a complaint . . . grants the

Title VII plaintiff significant leeway.” Cheek, 31 F.3d at 500. However, the requirement of some

specificity in the administrative charge is not a mere technicality. Id. at 501. The Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit has made clear that the purpose of the exhaustion requirement—which is

to provide the employer with adequate notice of the challenged conduct and to afford the EEOC

and the employer an opportunity to settle the dispute through conciliation—would be frustrated if

a general charge with the EEOC opened the door to subsequent judicial actions regarding any

related conduct in the employment relationship. Chaidez, 937 F.3d at 1006 (explaining that Title

VII's exhaustion requirement serves the dual purposes of notice and conciliation); Cheek, 31 F.3d

at 498.

In this case, Plaintiff’s EEOC charge for race discrimination did not provide Defendant

with notice of the particular challenged conduct or afford the EEOC an opportunity to settle the

dispute through conciliation. Plaintiff provided no specifics and offered no particularity along with

his general allegation. He included no allegations of any adverse employment action due to racial

discrimination, the specific acts of racial discrimination, or who in particular discriminated against

him. His claim is insufficiently specific and does not meet the “like or reasonably related” standard.

See, e.g., Reynolds v. Tangherlini, 737 F. 3d 1093, 1100 (7th Cir. 2013) (“some specificity is not

a mere technicality”); Cheek, 31 F.3d at 502 (finding that plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim was

not exhausted because her EEOC charge described sex discrimination conduct related to different

alleged practice of sex discrimination than her complaint alleged); Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 966

F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992) (concluding that a racial discrimination claim regarding an alleged

policy of filling part-time jobs with minorities was not exhausted despite plaintiff’s charge

providing allegations of specific conduct giving rise to racial discrimination in employee

advancement); O'Connell v. Cont'l Elec. Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119921, *9 (N.D. Ill.

2011) (“General allegations of discrimination in an administrative charge are not a sufficient

predicate for bringing any discrimination claim in federal court.”). Furthermore, generally

asserting discrimination without providing any specific dates or detail that can enable the Court to

find a “factual relationship between them is not enough to describe the same conduct and exhaust

a claim.” Burton v. HMS Host, No. 23 C 5395, 2024 WL 1254363, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024).

In this case, Plaintiff failed to include enough information about his racial discrimination claim in

his EEOC charge for it to have been exhausted. Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s

claim for race discrimination.

ii. Hostile Work Environment

Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not include any allegations of a hostile work

environment, any specific acts of harassment, or even use the word “harassment” in his EEOC

charge and, therefore, a hostile work environment claim is not within the scope of the charge.

Plaintiff asserts that the numerous specific incidents of harassment and discrimination that he

alleges in this litigation are not beyond the scope of his EEOC charge because the race

discrimination claim encompasses his hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff also argues that

his charge encompasses the specific acts of harassment that he alleges in this lawsuit because he

indicated on his charge that the discrimination was continuous.

A Title VII hostile work environment claim is established when an employee is subjected

to unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic—such as race, sex, or national

origin—that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an

abusive working environment. Cole v. Bd. of Trs., 838 F.3d 888, 895-96 (7th Cir. 2016); Alexander

v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972, 982 (7th Cir. 2014). A claim for hostile work environment is

distinct from a general claim of discrimination, and a plaintiff cannot bring a claim for a hostile

work environment unless the predicate EEOC charge specifically describes or infers the conduct

giving rise to that claim. See Huri, 804 F.3d 826; see also Cheek, 31 F.3d at 501, 503. Generally,

where an administrative charge fails to describe the specific conduct or identify the individuals

responsible for the alleged harassment or specific discriminatory acts, those claims are not

cognizable in the subsequent lawsuit. Cheek, 31 F.3d at 501 (explaining that an EEOC charge must

at minimum “describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals”); see also McKenzie,

92 F.3d at 481-83 (finding that a retaliation claim was not exhausted because it was not reasonably

related to and could not grow from the EEOC charge alleging sexual harassment). However, there

are situations where a hostile work environment claim is encompassed by a different EEOC charge

and a specific allegation of a hostile work environment is not necessary, such as when the plaintiff

alleges certain types of harassment. Huri, 804 F.3d at 832 (allegations of harassment were

sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim because “the word ‘harassment’ frequently

describes the conduct that defines the phrase hostile work environment”); see also Hildebrandt v.

Ill. Dep't of Natural Res., 347 F.3d 1014, 1033 (7th Cir. 2003) (“harassment . . . is a broad term

which encompasses all forms of conduct that unreasonably interfere with an individual’s work

performance or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”); Babrocky, 773

F.2d at 864 (“although the plaintiff specifically mentioned only racial discrimination in her charge,

[the court] interpreted the narrative of the charge to encompass claims of sex discrimination”).

In this case, Plaintiff’s EEOC charge did not mention harassment, any specific events that

would suggest harassment or a hostile workplace, or allude in any way to a hostile work

environment. To support the notion that his hostile work environment claim is exhausted, Plaintiff

argues that he checked the box on the EEOC charge for continuing action and included allegations

of harassment. However, as Defendant points out, there was no checkbox for continuing action on

the form Plaintiff completed, there was no indication of continuing action, nor did the charge allege

any specific acts of harassment or use the word “harassment.” Def. Ex. 13 p. 2-4 [DE 44-13]. The

charge failed to include a detailed narrative charge with details that could be read broadly to

encompass a race discrimination claim.

Merely checking the “Race” discrimination box on an EEOC charge is legally insufficient

to make the charge “like or reasonably related” to specific claims, such as discriminatory discharge

or harassment, if the narrative of the charge does not describe the specific conduct giving rise to

those claims. Moore v. Vital Prods., 641 F.3d 253, 257 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Burton, 2024 WL

1254363, at 4 (finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his hostile

work environment claim because his EEOC charge provided no supporting facts or date).

Plaintiff's EEOC charge only stated a generalized belief of discrimination on the basis of race

without describing any specific conduct, occurrences, or particular individuals. The specific acts

of harassment alleged in the current lawsuit cannot be reasonably inferred from, or expected to

grow out of an investigation of, a bare statement indicating a belief of racial discrimination against

oneself. See Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., 937 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2019); McKenzie, 92 F.3d 473.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Title VII hostile workplace claim is not encompassed

by his EEOC charge. The claim is, therefore, also not exhausted and is procedurally barred.

Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.

iii. Retaliation

Plaintiff refers to two different instances of retaliation: one for complaining about a noose

in his workplace and the other for inquiring about the status of a monetary grievance. Defendant

does not dispute that the financial inquiry was administratively exhausted, but argues that

Plaintiff’s allegation that he was retaliated against for complaining about a noose is not

encompassed by Plaintiff’s EEOC charge and therefore has not been exhausted.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he found a noose near his locker and reported it to

Defendant’s civil rights representative, but the representative told him to keep quiet about the

noose because he was on a Last Chance Agreement. Plaintiff claims that he was later terminated

in retaliation for reporting the noose. In his brief, Plaintiff suggests that the noose may have been

placed near his work area because he inquired about the monetary grievance. However, he alleges

that he found and reported the noose in November 2022, several months before he inquired into

the status of his monetary grievance in February 2023. The noose could not have been placed near

his locker to retaliate for an event that had not yet occurred.

In his EEOC charge for retaliation, Plaintiff did not mention finding or reporting a noose.

Plaintiff only claimed that he believed he was terminated in retaliation for inquiring into the status

of his monetary grievance, a grievance that had nothing to do with race or any statutorily protected

activity. The claim that he was retaliated against for reporting a noose did not grow out of the

monetary grievance charge and the two claims are not “like or reasonably related.” See Chaidez,

937 F.3d 998 at 1004-05; Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535, 550 (7th Cir.

2002) (explaining that failure to mention any protected activity in charge precluded a claim).

Plaintiff’s EEOC charge also simply does not provide Defendant with notice that he was claiming

retaliation for reporting a noose or afford the EEOC an opportunity to settle the dispute through

conciliation. See Chaidez, 937 F.3d 998 at 1005-06. To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that the

noose incident and retaliation claim are encompassed by his claims for race discrimination and

hostile work environment, those two claims were not administratively exhausted as described

above. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim that he was retaliated against by

Defendant for reporting a noose has not been administratively exhausted.

B. Retaliation for Inquiring about Monetary Grievance

Plaintiff’s claim that he was terminated in retaliation for inquiring about the status of a

monetary grievance was administratively exhausted. Defendant argues that it is entitled to

judgment on this claim because inquiring into the status of a monetary grievance is not statutorily

protected activity. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s argument.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits retaliation in employment for engaging

in protected activities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2024). To withstand a motion for summary

judgment, a plaintiff must show (1) they engaged in activity protected by Title VII, (2) they

suffered an adverse action taken by the defendant employer, and (3) a causal connection between

the protected activity and the adverse action. Madlock v. WEC Energy Grp., Inc., 885 F.3d 465,

472 (7th Cir. 2018). To establish that an adverse action has resulted, the employee must show

harm, although harm is not limited to reduced compensation. Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d

844, 856 (7th Cir. 2016) (“‘Federal law protects an employee only from retaliation that produces

an injury,’ and by themselves, these threats [of unspecified disciplinary action] did not. They had

no effect on [the plaintiff]’s compensation or career prospects.”) (quoting Stephens v. Erickson,

569 F.3d 779, 790 (7th Cir. 2009)). To succeed in establishing a causal link, Plaintiff must show

that he would not have been fired from his position but for his protected activity. See Adusumilli

v. City of Chi., 164 F.3d 353, 363 (7th Cir. 1998). “When the plaintiff establishes a prima facie

case of retaliation, an employer may produce evidence which, if taken as true, would permit the

conclusion that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse employment

action.” Robertson v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 949 F.3d 371, 378 (7th Cir. 2020). “If the employer

meets this burden, the plaintiff, to avoid summary judgment, then must produce evidence that

would permit a trier of fact to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate

reasons offered by the employer were not its true reasons but were a pretext for discrimination.”

Id.

In this case, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when he was discharged from

his job, but Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s inquiry into his monetary grievance was not

statutorily protected activity. Title VII protects employees who oppose practices made unlawful

under the statute or who participate in investigations or proceedings related to such practices. 42

USCS § 2000e-3 (2024). For an activity to be protected, the complaint must relate to discrimination

based on a protected class (e.g., race, sex, national origin). Plaintiff’s grievance related to a

monetary grievance that his union filed in 2019 over a labor dispute that, based on the information

provided from the parties, does not appear to be related in any way to any protected activity.

Plaintiff does not advance any argument or offer any evidence to support the notion that

his inquiry into his monetary grievance should qualify as a protected activity, and therefore waives

this argument. See Cole v. Bd. of Trs., 838 F.3d 888, 900 (7th Cir. 2016) (“plaintiff . . . has the

burden to respond to a proper motion for summary judgment by offering enough evidence to allow

a reasonable jury to find in his favor on the issues raised”); Nichols v. Mich. City Plant Planning

Dep’t., 755 F.3d 594, 600 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The non-moving party waives any arguments that were

not raised in its response to the moving party’s motion for summary judgment.”).

Since Plaintiff has not provided any evidence or even a bare assertion that he engaged in

protected activity when he inquired about the status of his grievance, there is not a dispute of

material fact as to this retaliation claim and Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment on

Plaintiff’s monetary grievance-related retaliation claim.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [DE 43]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor

of Defendant United States Steel Corporation, on all of Plaintiff’s claims.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2026.

s/ John E. Martin

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record