Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of a discrimination charge and chooses to respond to the merits of the claim before the EEOC without asserting lack of verification as a defense it waives its right to secure dismissal of the federal court proceedings on that basis”). Moreover, verification provides notice and an opportunity for the employer to investigate, promoting the prompt administration of discrimination complaints and possible settlement. But we also recognize that a rigid rule can result in a Title VII complainant inadvertently forfeiting his or her rights. That suggests a rule where noncomplianee might be excused, at least in extreme circumstances where negligent EEOC conduct would mislead a reasonable layperson into thinking he need not verify. Price apparently allows such a result. See Price, 687 F.2d at 79 (<HOLDING>); see also B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling (B) holding that certificate of merit is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional filing requirement (C) holding requirement nonjurisdictional and remanding for a possible eeoc waiver of that requirement (D) recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver (E) holding copyright statutes registration requirement a nonjurisdictional condition although previously held to be jurisdictional
Output (English): holding that certificate of merit is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional filing requirement