The pro se plaintiff alleged (1) her male co-worker harassed her because of her gender, (2) that her male supervisor refused to correct her co-worker’s behavior, and (3) that her supervisor reduced her hours and subjected her to intimidation in retaliation because of her complaint about said harassment to upper management. Therefore, the employee's complaint alleged sufficient facts under lenient pleading standards for harassment and retaliation.
Furthermore, Luevano could also include an additional retaliation claim in her complaint arising out of her filing of her EEOC charge, even though that claim arose under subsequent right to sue letter, since Luevano need not file second EEOC charge for said retaliation where said claim bore relationship to plaintiff’s allegations in original EEOC charge.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit found that the District Court must allow a pro se plaintiff seeking in forma pauperis status leave to amend her complaint at least one time after it sua sponte dismissed the complaint under §1915 for failure to state cause of action, if such leave to amend would have been granted to fee-paying plaintiff under Rule 15(a).