good morning please the court the issue presented on appeal today is whether the district court area ruling the plaintiffs eighty eight claims were time barred due to her charge of discrimination being filed beyond three hundred  however the court wrongfully held that the plate this information sheet was not a charge the court made several errors in rendering this decision first collected in improper regulation to apply with respect to what information should be it is written identified parodies and generally described the action or the practices that are being complained about the district court insisted however that the more stringent conditions under twelve a should have been  that the plaintiffs should have also argued that the employer had more and ploy the number of employees at the the employer had as well as more specific information and facts three hundred days or something the future i know it's unusual it is about one hundred eighty days your honor however in the complaint and information she all the salient information is there that the plaint had a perceived disability that she was injured on march on march twenty seventh where she was in a car accident and that she walked with a limb that her supervisors the h r department actually no i would think that five years later would be far too long however it was only it was three hundred three hundred ninety eight days i do believe between store the year yes your honor to mourn three hundred days yes you she may have said this is a this is that charge but she did make an affirmative statement that she wanted to have the e e o c look at her case as well and as and pursue the case on her information new people come and go that's why they put deadlines and that's a pretty long deadline it's a long deadline your honor but there's no one she sure lawyer i cannot say your honor well is not the logical language in the form and said this is not a charge that was in the context explaining that there would have to be a formalized notarized document subsequently filed which goes to the verification requirement which which is it is correct to say that the days will section sixteen a one point twelve b says that a charge may be amended to cure omissions including a failure to verify and any such amendment will relate back to the date the charges first received because her form five document was verified that relates back to the date that the complaint information she was first received and the language in the document is not controlling what's controlling is whether she describes the alleged discrimination and objective there's an objective man manifestation of a request for remedial action and the text above the signature line in the complaint in procedure is no deadline that's not that's not what we're saying your honor there is there and it's like what you're saying well the complainant information she was filed within three hundred days that met all the requirements of a valid charge if there is some extended period such as five years your honor suggested there are equitable defenses that an employer can raise such as latches that's ridiculous  well you're on it have to be deadlines we agree that there have to be done vines and the resort five years late and the employer just says just has to try to prove you now that that he says that he suffered as a result of that or well you're right or i'm just saying that if there is an extended period before the employer receives notice there are defenses that are available but this case is not jurisdictional it's a it's a condition prerequisite to filing suit and to the extent that there are ambiguity as are problems with the charge filing process courts are instructed by the supreme court to construe those in favor of protecting the statutory remedies of the charge filer because these are remedial statutes that must be construed to protect medial statutes statutes school hours you know there are charge that was within three hundred days the relation back revision is very straightforward it was embraced by the supreme court and all madrasas college and this is a straightforward application using the charge through the formal charges can be filed any time five ten twenty years later i'm not taking that position your honor i'm saying on the if you are because you're saying just a matter of defense for the company sued has to prove that it was harmed that's what you're saying i'm not saying that there is an unlimited amount of time before the employer what is the limit there's no hard and fast rule you  say there is no limit and now you want you won't tell me what the limit is you just say it's not a hard and fast rule i think is so you're leaving yourself room to argue for timeliness no matter how late the the charges filed i think it's an individualized analysis that must be conducted us and do anything for me individualized analysis and ten years twenty years thirty years here is three hundred ninety eight days which is not such  new law we don't think it's a new law you are and what it is it is not no this is not the same and intercourse you juggling between state and federal rights in which causes a little more blur is unfortunate that this happened i suppose that lawyer didn't read something or didn't do something but you're here saying this is going to be the present from now on we think that the supreme court already answered this question eight which is a e e o c intake questionnaire and there was an affidavit attached and i don't know exactly what's going on internally with the c but at some point they say there was never a finalized form five document that was verified by the employee charge of discrimination under the standard and how likely and secondly whether the district court correctly ruled that in each charge signed in verified by plaintiff jackie carlson three hundred ninety days after the alleged discrimination occurred could not relate back to the information she it was not a charge we submit that the trial court's ruling on these issues was correct and requested this court affirm the judgment in favor of christian brothers we'd like to call this court's attention to some facts that do not appear in the record that she even authorized her attorney to file an information she or that she intended to request that the agency act on that information sheet in fact carlson never explained why she did net timely file and there are five or charge in the record and the explanation that she provided today does not appear in the in the record there is no admissible evidence in this record regarding the work sharing agreement between ita charney e e o c so to the extent carol's and realizing that it's improper and the content of posing counsel's a conversations with representatives of the e e o c in the i d f char which was obtained after the issue of timeliness was raised in admissible hearsay and should not be considered turning to the key issues in the case it's clear that the information she filed by carlson did not has to charge under how because any reasonable person reading it and certainly any reasonable attorney would understand that is not a charge and that it contains no request for remedial action the information she conjunction with the clear statement that it's not a charge and any reasonable person who reads the entire document as an instruction to do would understand it's not a charge or a request for remedial action the language that carlson in the e too must be read in context of the whole form in context it is clear that this document is not a charge of discrimination it's the civically says it's nath and cremation she says the charge must be verified but it contains no space for verification the title and the wording of this form suggested it's purpose is for the individual to seek information but not to request remedial action significantly how well they do creep who file a complaint  suffer otherwise i might file a charge some individuals do that this individual did not but individuals do go to the e e o c or the department of human rights to get information about discrimination and sometimes they want to talk with the agency and this is mentioned in how wacky and in fact it was urged by the e e o c that not everything that is filed should be a charge because part of the agency's purpose is to give information talk to people many of whom do not file charges of discrimination even the e e o c took the position in how leckie in the supreme court accepted their position that not every filing is a charge there must be in addition to the items suggested in the regulation the land mentioned in addition there must be a request for remedial action it is clear from the face of this document that was filed the information she does not contain a request for remedial action i mean it's curious in a way because if you file a complaint in behind i think is the e e o c maintained in holloway is to give the agency in addition to its purpose of pursuing remedial action on behalf of complainants it also has a purpose of providing information and counseling complainants that is separate from that that that process has started with the information she if a person wants to take remedial action they go ahead and file a charge and the information she clearly says this is not a charge because some people want to go and talk to the e but they may not want to in institute remedial action against their employer and put that adversarial process in place and that was the e e o c his position in holloway and the supreme court agreed with it now carlson cites language in the complainant information sheet that says under the consent agreement and release i v h r will also file my charge of discrimination with e e o c and i authorize e e o c to look into the discrimination alleged about if it has jurisdiction read in context with the language stating this is not a charge a separate charge will have to be filed is clear that this language only relates to what would happen if the charges file in the language of the information sheet is not as easy as he contends in its brief like backs to what the e e o c is current intake questionnaire which is different from this document the e e o c backs to a charging party can use their form they can either check facts one that says i want to talk to any ios employee before deciding whether to file a charge or the you can check back to that they're citing two that says i want to file a charge of discrimination and by checking back to if they're seeking remedial action in fact the language of the information sheet is more like the language and back one which says i understand that by checking this box i have not filed a charge in contrast to the situation here and that cannot be right it's inconsistent with the view expressed by the e e o c in the supreme court and how wacky that not every complaint is a charge because a critical part of the e e o c is mission is to respond to inquiries and never become charges the request to act requirements separates filings from individuals who have questions when information from those who want to pursue a charge in addition there is no evidence in the record that the idea or the e e o c ever considered the information sheet to be a charge prior to the it is some evidence that the agencies themselves did not consider the information sheet to be a charge and it is interesting that both agencies assigned two thousand and thirteen charge numbers not two thousand and twelve the public policy arguments made by the e persuasive the e e o c has broad powers to investigate with or without a charge through subpoenas and otherwise enforcing the legislatively mandated statutes of limitation will not impair its ability to enforce the civil rights laws the verification it is it's unspirited that the information sheet was never sang by carlson at all and never verified by anyone that required the church to sign it is required that a charge be signed and verified it is permissible all the elements of a charge except for the verification that's what the relation back requirement refers to it does not allow you to correct information sheet that never was a charge they never requested a action after the it is not a charge to summarize this case does not warrant expansion of the definition of a charge in the manner urged by carlson the information sheet submitted by carlson's attorney clearly stated it was not a charge that something more needed to be done to pilot charge it did not contain any request for remedial action and it cannot be considered a charge under how wacky we respectfully request that the judgment of the district court be affirmed thank you miss m specifically that the definition of a charge should be conditioned on whether or not the agency serves the document on the employer and the supreme court said it would be illogical and impractical to make the definition of a charge contingent on a condition that is beyond the party's control so that argument is completely foreclosed by holloway what's the charge here the chargers the complaint information she because it meets the regulations the section sixteen a one point twelve in every point be verified but and here the objective manifestation of remedial action was the text above the signature line which says i authorized u s c to look into the discrimination alleged above and in the portion in which the miss carlson was describing the alleged discrimination it says discrimination you are requesting ideate are to investigate that as an objective manifestation of a desire for an investigation which is sufficient under hollow eki and the regulation s that just to have point do you want to address his miranda argument about the separation of information contained speaking to an investigation versus  charge you seem to suggest that this contains enough i am asking for the inquiry to satisfy the charge aspect that's correct there are informal documents that are plainly seeking information and there's no reason to believe that the person submitting it to the agency is seeking anything more than to be educated about his or her rights but when there is any manifestation of it is higher for an investigation or some other type of remedy that is sufficient so in and in our document what's the indication in your view that they want more than an inquiry into the the matter the text above the signature line says i understand that the illinois what a complaint is a complaint complaints you know i'm annoyed the company mistreated me that's correct and the dice what's in the complaint you treat that as a charge so long as there is some manifest exactly every complaint on your approach is going to be a charge because every complaint is going to be asking for relief against the company otherwise you don't file a complaint but there still is the verification requirement that must be met which could happen you know in twenty years from now it was a relation back no deadline on the verification the mess your honor we don't think that this is a case that present such an extreme situation that there was three hundred bad enough you have a long deadline and want to have that deadlines extended indefinitely i don't think that's a position the i think it is well mr cohen what is the law on the commission is seeking here just some equitable relief in this case you just some limited case that the commission is interested or is there a broader policy question here that you're trying to ask us to address i'm not sure i understand the commission's position it's a limited position in the sense that the document filed here costs you it's a charge for purposes of the supreme court's decision and all the wacky and the regulations which govern what a document must contain to count as a chart we're not talking about any other forms or any broader you inform us whether this illinois complained information sheet is is representative of what is a nationwide it is not your honor it's the first i've ever seen and as far as i know the commission is interested because of the illinois document the way it's the way it's set up is that is that the commission's inquiry or interesting because since interest is that we issue procedural regulations on what a doctor must contain to count as a charge and if a court misconstrues those regulations are interested in correcting that it's that's the basic reason the sea is here as lots of complaint that isn't a charge if it is not verified that would be the most a get the verification talking about the content of the complaint well if it party as it also must describe the alleged discrimination in general terms and it must object of the manifest a desire for remedial action if those requirements are met courts are to construe documents as charges for purposes of the three remedy by the recipient of the charge or document and that would be the agency and well if they're asking for the agency to do something what do you need to charge for the charge is what is a formalized document that is verified and typically served on the employer like this is ridiculous mess and should be able to make things simpler having the success of documents i understand we we are chagrined that there is litigation over something that should be so basic and that is a function of the fact that there are state agencies and federal agencies and not every is going to let me ask you one last question if i may now if if that's their the alleged unlawful employment practices should we always read into it that there's a remedial effort i don't think they are because there was a description of the alleged in the court said that there has to be something more the court said that there has to be some additional requests for a remedy so i don't think that just describing the discrimination alone is sufficient but i think that you know what why would would someone