WNBA NEWS: Dearica Hamby v. WNBA Lawsuit
By: Zachary Aman, Esq., Associate Attorney, of The Mundaca Law Firm
Dearica Hamby’s lawsuit against the WNBA has reached a pivotal juncture, with a key claim concerning the non-renewal of her marketing contract being dismissed by the court. This decision significantly highlights the stringent procedural requirements inherent in employment discrimination litigation, particularly the critical need for administrative exhaustion. The court explicitly stated that Hamby had not “plausibly alleged that she exhausted her administrative remedies” with respect to this specific claim.
The principle of administrative exhaustion is a cornerstone of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandating that plaintiffs first bring their grievances to administrative bodies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before pursuing legal action in federal court. This preliminary step serves several vital functions. It provides the party accused of discrimination with formal notice of the allegations, offering an opportunity for an early, potentially amicable resolution outside of the judicial system. Furthermore, it allows the administrative agency to investigate the claims, gather facts, and potentially mediate a settlement, thereby helping to narrow the issues that might ultimately proceed to court.
Under federal law, complainants are typically required to file a charge with the EEOC “within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” with an extension to 300 days if a state or local agency also possesses the authority to grant relief related to the alleged unlawful employment practice. Nevada law, specifically NRS § 613.430, similarly requires complaints to be filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice.
In Hamby’s situation, she acknowledged that neither her initial EEOC charge nor any subsequent amendments, both filed before her marketing contract expired on October 28, 2023, contained any allegations regarding the non-renewal of that contract. The court found that an investigation into these marketing contract allegations could not reasonably be expected to “grow out of” her original or amended EEOC charges. Her previous allegations solely focused on the WNBA’s purported failure to adequately investigate and remediate her earlier discrimination complaint against the Las Vegas Aces. The court emphasized that the subject matter and the timeline of the marketing contract non-renewal were too distinct from the prior allegations to be considered implicitly covered by the existing EEOC charges.
As a direct consequence of this failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and given that the statutory deadline for amending or filing a new charge has long passed, the court dismissed this claim against the WNBA with prejudice. A “dismissal with prejudice” is a definitive legal ruling that permanently bars Hamby from bringing this specific claim concerning the marketing contract non-renewal against the WNBA again, effectively concluding that aspect of her lawsuit.
This ruling serves as a powerful and imperative reminder for both employees and legal professionals navigating the complexities of discrimination law. It underscores the absolute necessity of meticulously documenting and formally articulating all distinct instances of perceived discrimination or retaliation within the scope of the initial EEOC charge. Adherence to these strict procedural requirements is not merely a formality but a fundamental prerequisite for preserving the right to pursue such claims in federal court.
Hamby v. Aces, WNBA Order Granting MTD
The Mundaca Law Firm specializes in employment law, business law, and crisis management. We have attorneys licensed in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and Texas. To learn more about The Mundaca Law Firm, please visit www.mundacalaw.com .