UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) JEFFERY COLEMAN , ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v. ) Case No. 1 8

- cv - 01 215 (APM) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER ) AND SEWER AUTHORITY , ) ) Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant D.C. Water and Sewer Authority’s Motion to Dismiss rests on a single premise : Plaintiff Jeffrey Coleman’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“ EEOC ”) Intake Questionnaire , filed on January 18, 2017, does not constitute a “charge” for pur pos es of the limitations period under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”).
See Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10 [ hereinaf t er Def.’s M em .] , at 5

– 10

. The parties agree that, i f the Intake Questionnaire constitutes a “charge” under the ADEA, then
Plaintiff’s suit is timely; if not , the action is untimely.
I.
As applicable here , the ADEA requires that an employee file a “charge ” with the EEOC

“ within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (1)(B). The ADEA does not define the term “charge,” but the Supreme Court filled that gap in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki

. 552 U.S. 389 (2008). There, the court held that an EEOC Intake Q uestionnaire can constitute a “charge” if it contains three elements: (1) an allegation of age discrimination; (2) the name of the charged party; and, critically, (3) “ a request for the agency to2 take remedial action to protect the employee’s rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employ er and the employee.” Id. at 402 . As to that last element, it must appear to the “objective observer” that “the filer requests the agency to activate its machin ery and remedial processes

. . . . ”
Id. Plaintiff’s Intake Questionnaire easily satisfies the standard set forth in Holowecki . Like
the filer in Holowecki , Plaintiff’s Questionnaire

— including his two

- page statement appended
thereto

— contains the following basic factual information: Plaintiff’s name, address, and phone number, as well as those of his employer; an allegation that he and others were the victim s of age discrimination; the number of persons employed by his employer ; and a statement that he had not sought the assistance of any other government agency regarding the m atter. Compare id. at 404
with Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s M ot

. , ECF No. 11, Ex. A., ECF No. 11

- 2 [hereinafter Intake Questionnaire], at 2, 4, 6

– 7. Additionally, and most importantly , Plaintiff unequivocally requested that the agency
“activ at e its machinery and remedial process es
. ” Holowecki , 552 U.S. at 402. Plaintiff checked

“ Box 2 ” on the Intake Questionnaire , which provides: “ I want to file a charge of discrimination,
and I authorize the EEOC to look into the discrimination I described above. I understand that the EEOC must give the employer

. . . that I accuse of discrimination information about the charge, including my name.” Intake Questionnaire at 4. That fact is arguably dispo sitive. Following
Holowecki , the EEOC revised its intake questionnaire to include “Box 2 , ” so as “to require claimants to check a box to request that the EEOC take remedial action .” Hildebrand v. Allegheny County , 757 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir. 2014)

. The Third Circuit in Hildebrand held that “an employee who completes the Intake Questionnaire and checks Box 2 unquestionably file s a charge of
discrimination.” Id. (emphasis added) ; accord Leftwich v. Gallaudet Univ

. , 878 F. Supp. 2d 81,3 9 1

– 92 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that intake questionnaire qualified as a charge where the employee
had checked a box similar to “Box 2”)

. Thus, Plaintiff’s unqualified checking of “Box 2” is itself a request for action.
But there is more. Plaintiff concluded hi s two

- page statement with an expre ss call for the
agency to act: “I am requesting that the EEOC investigate the claims contained in this supplement.” Intake Questionnaire at 7. That sentence unambiguously calls on the EEOC to act on his complaint. Accor dingly, Plaintiff’s Intake Questionnaire qualifies as a “charge” for the
ADEA’s 300

- day limitations period.
II. The cases Defendant relies upon are all readily distinguishable. See Def.’s M em . at 6

– 9 ;
see also Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 13, at 2

– 6

. Defendant’s heavy reliance on Dyson

v. District of Columbia is misplaced, as Dyson , though decided after Holowecki , does not even mention that binding authority. See generally 808 F. Supp. 2 d 84 (D.D.C

. 2011). 1 Dyson therefore
carries no persuasive force. Additionally, Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc. , is wholly inapt. 598 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2009). There, the intake form suffered from “significant deficiencies,” such as failing to name the employer; identifying the petitioner as under the age of 40, thereby taking himself outside of the ADEA’s coverage; and missing “any detailed description of the discriminatory conduct.” Id. at 61

. The Intake Questionnaire here does not suffer from
thes e shortcomings. Finally, Mi nter v. District of Columbia is readily distinguishable, as the employee in that case “did not attach a letter or separate documen t to the questionnaire expressing her intention to file a claim,” but instead expressly asked only to “ consult with a[n] EEO Specialist

1 The Circuit’s decision in Dyso n v. District of Columbia does not help Defendant either, as that decision did not address whether the employee’s intake questionnaire qualified as a “charge” under Holowecki

. See generally 710 F. 3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013).4 regarding the possible filing of charges.” 62 F. Supp. 3d 149, 163 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)

. Plaintiff, by contrast, expressly asked the EEOC to “investigate the claims contained in this supplement.”
III. In summary, Plaintiff’s Intake Questionnaire meets the definition of “charge” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Holowecki . Accordingly, his claim is timely. Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is therefore denied.

Dated: December 17 , 2018 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge