Document: 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Paul HOLOWECKI et al. No. 06-1322. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 6, 2007. Decided February 27, 2008. *1152 Connie L. Lensing, Memphis, TN, for Petitioner. David Rose, Respondents. Toby J. Heytens, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Robert K. Spotswood, Kenneth D. Sansom, Emily Tidmore, Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC, Birmingham, AL, Walter E. Dellinger, Pamela Harris, Jonathan Hacker, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Washington, D.C., Lewis R. Jeffery Kelsey, Edward Efkeman, Counsel Record Respondents, Joshua N. Rose P.C., Respondents Holowecki, Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. This case arises under Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 seq. When an employee files "a charge alleging unlawful [age] discrimination" with Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sets Act's enforcement mechanisms motion, commencing a waiting period during which cannot file suit. The phrase, discrimination," is used statute, 626(d), and "charge" appears agency's implementing regulations; but it has no statutory definition. In deciding what constitutes Courts Appeals have adopted different definitions. As result, difficulties arisen determining when employees *1153 may seek relief ADEA courts competent jurisdiction. cautionary preface, we note that EEOC periods claims differ some respects from those pertaining to other statutes enforces, such Title VII Civil Rights 1964, 78 253, 42 2000e seq., Americans Disabilities 1990, 104 327, 12101 While there be areas common definition, their counsel must careful not apply rules applicable one statute without critical examination. Cf. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 586-587, 124 1236, 157 Ed. 2d 1094 (2004). so even if forms same definition more than type discrimination case. I Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), provides mail pickup delivery services customers worldwide. 1994 1995, FedEx initiated two programs, designed, says, make its 45,000-strong courier network productive. "Best Practice Pays" (BPP) "Minimum Acceptable Performance Standards" (MAPS), tied couriers' compensation continued employment certain performance benchmarks, instance number stops makes per day. are 14 current former couriers over age 40. They filed suit District Southern New York on April 30, 2002, claiming, inter alia, BPP MAPS violate ADEA. Asserting were typical many nationwide, respondents sought represent plaintiffs' class all 40 who subject alleged acts FedEx. maintains veiled attempts force older workers out company before they would entitled receive retirement benefits. FedEx, alleged, initiatives pretext harassing discriminating against favor younger ones. immediate question us timeliness plaintiffs below, Patricia Kennedy, referred here "respondent." Petitioner moved dismiss respondent's action, contending respondent had her at least 60 days filing suit, required 626(d). Respondent countered she valid December 11, 2001, submitting Form 283. agency labels 283 "Intake Questionnaire." attached questionnaire signed affidavit describing discriminatory practices greater detail. determined these documents granted motion dismiss. 02 Civ. 3355(LMM) (SDNY, Oct. 9, 2002), App. Pet. Cert. 39a. An appeal followed, Second Circuit reversed. See 440 F.3d 558, 570 (2006). We certiorari consider whether was charge, 551 ____, 127 2914, 168 242 (2007), now affirm. II presents distinct questions: What uses term? And 2001 charge? *1154 A relevant provision states: "No civil action commenced individual [the ADEA] until after been Commission. . "Upon receiving shall promptly notify persons named prospective defendants eliminate any practice informal methods conciliation, conference, persuasion." does define charge. regulations give content term, fall short comprehensive authority issue regulations, see 628; invokes then interpret ambiguous terms, defer reasonable interpretations. Chevron U.S.A. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 843-845, 2778, 694 (1984). adoptedso far goare constructions term There little dispute about this. guidance give. One CFR 1626.3 "Other definitions." It says: "charge mean statement behalf aggrieved person alleges defendant engaged engage actions violation Act." Section 1626.8(a) identifies five pieces information should contain": (1)-(2) names, addresses, telephone numbers making charged entity; (3) facts act; (4) employer; (5) indicating charging party state proceedings. next subsection, 1626.8(b), however, seems qualify requirements stating "sufficient" meets 1626.6i.e., "in writing name[s] generally allege[s] act(s)." Even aid meaning remains unclear, evident differing positions parties Appeals. contends Intake Questionnaire unless upon it. On hand Appeals, including Circuit, take position similar Government's this case, can constitute expresses filer's intent activate EEOC's processes. See, e.g., Steffen Meridian Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534, 542 (C.A.7 1988). third view, accord position, completed Questionnaires charges. Casavantes California State Univ., Sacramento, 732 1441, 1443 (C.A.9 1984). B support filed, taken together six-page affidavit, regulatory places considerable emphasis might described regulations' catchall savings provision, 1626.8(b). *1155 require only written document general allegation conduct employer. points that, read together, §§ 1626.8(b) 1626.6 say sufficient receives. statement" "name[s] [employer] views language unequivocal sees basis requiring contain additional information. expressed brief, identify do provide exhaustive such, meet minimal question, then, becomes how scope regulations. Just interpretations issues first instance, Chevron, supra, further deference adopts interpretation put force. Auer Robbins, 519 452, 117 905, 137 79 (1997). Under Auer, accept "`"plainly erroneous inconsistent regulation."'" Id., 461, 905 (quoting Robertson Methow Valley Citizens 490 332, 359, 109 1835, 351 (1989)). standard necessary components charge; follows meeting every instance. 1626.8 viewed isolation rest True, structure less clear. But provisions grouped title, "ProceduresAge permissible reading procedures full contents contain. Auer. C resolve agree Government elements contain, remains. point silent. submits proper test filing, whole, construed request whatever vindicate rights. Brief Amicus Curiae 15. brief various internal directives issued field offices years. 1 Compliance Manual 2.2(b), p. 2:0001 (Aug.2002); Memorandum Elizabeth M. Thornton, Director, Office Field Programs, EEOC, All District, Area, Local Directors (Feb. 21, line http://www.eeoc. gov/charge/memo-2-21-02.html (hereinafter Thornton Memo) (all Internet materials visited Feb. 2008, available Clerk Court's file); Nicholas Inzeo, Field, (Aug. 13, 2007), http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/memo-8-13-07.html. asserts request-to-act requirement extrapolation *1156 dispositive acknowledges not, face, speak intent. To extent derived text spring But, context, construct Congress underlying incorporated agency. Thus, insofar intent, repeating statute. could argued, distinguished Gonzales Oregon, 546 243, 257, 126 904, 163 748 (2006) (the "near equivalence regulation belies for] deference"); Christensen Harris County, 529 576, 588, 120 1655, 146 (2000) (an "under guise interpreting create de facto new regulation"). hold applies construction however. For inapplicable, proposed turn reasons conclusion. D our view policy statements, embodied compliance manual directives, also itself. Assuming interpretive statements deference, reflect "`a body experience informed judgment litigants properly resort guidance.'" Bragdon Abbott, 524 624, 642, 118 2196, 141 (1998) Skidmore Swift 323 134, 65 161, 89 (1944)). "measure respect" deferential standard. Alaska Dept. Environmental Conservation EPA, 487, 488, 983, 967 (2004); Mead Corp., 533 218, 227-239, 121 2164, 150 292 (2001). Skidmore, applied consistency. 228, 2164; Good Samaritan Hospital Shalala, 508 402, 417, 113 2151, 368 (1993). Here, statement, memoranda, binding staff Memo, supra. concedes, implementation uneven. 25. very Tampa office did treat done. And, initiate conciliation process These undoubted deficiencies administration scheme enough, deprive judicial deference. Some degree treatment unavoidable processes 175,000 inquiries year. 19, n. 10. although memoranda relies circulated certiorari, takes consistent previous directives. reason assume positionthat *1157 requests actionwas framed specific purpose aiding litigation. Bowen Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 204, 212-213, 468, 102 493 (1988). moreover, drawn attention need way allows fulfill functions enforcing antidiscrimination laws disseminating public. Barnhart Walton, 535 212, 225, 122 1265, 152 330 (2002) (noting appropriate "matters detail related [an agency's] administration" statute). duty resolution receipt mandatory context. 626(d) ("[T]he persuasion"); Lopez Davis, 531 230, 241, 714, 148 635 (2001) Congress' use "`shall'" indicates "impose discretionless obligations"). Yet, time, intended serve "educational" function. 705(i), 259; id., 705(g)(3) power "furnish title technical assistance request"). Providing answers public's questions part mission; accounts substantial work. Of receives each year, dockets around 76,000 allowing errors classification charges noncharges, filings come individuals rights simply want efficient operations, effect congressional requires mechanism separate requests. Respondent's standard, name employer, falls regard. Were stripped-down prevail, approach end up divulging enough likely anyone completes Questionnairewhich space indicate address offending employer asks answer "What you believe discrimination?" 43a. If knows reporting will mandate discouraged consulting wait situation become untenable efforts futile. result contrary desire act provider try settle disputes through means. reasons, advocatesi.e., conform 1626.6is tension purposes positionthe requirementprovides alternative framework. No clearer alternatives within expertise adopt; Skidmore. conclude follows: addition *1158 i.e., party, deemed reasonably remedial protect employee's otherwise between employee. "`manifest intent'" test, which, order demonstrate "an individual's investigatory conciliatory processes." F.3d, 566 (case below); Wilkerson Grinnell 270 1314, 1319 (C.A.11 2001); Steffen, F.2d, 543; Bihler Singer 710 96, 99 (C.A.3 1983). formulation suggests mind somehow determinative, misses point. If, means examined standpoint objective observer determine whether, filer machinery processes, true permissive wide range classified design formal litigation pro se held lesser pleading parties. Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 106, 97 285, 50 251 (1976) (Pro pleadings "liberally construed"). administrative context rule, exception. ADEA, like VII, "remedial laypersons, rather lawyers, expected process." Commercial Products 486 107, 124, 108 1666, 100 96 (1988); Oscar Mayer Co. Evans, 441 750, 756, 2066, 609 (1979) "common purpose" ADEA). system accessible detailed knowledge thus form, easy complete, document, draft. implements purposes. Reasonable arguments made adopt giving filers, clear stated quite explicit terms. rule sort yield results. This, matter decide light protecting covered Act. decisions regard oversight political branches. National Cable Telecommunications Assn. Brand X Services, 545 967, 980, 125 2688, 162 820 (2005) ("Filling gaps [in statutes] involves difficult choices agencies better equipped courts"). find depart usual rule: Where ambiguities analysis application presented, choose among alternatives. E interest petitioner urges condition hence ability sue, fulfilling process. petitioner's because *1159 "[u]pon charge," failure rejects we. textual matter, proposal too artificial accept. lawsuit; right sue taking action. Ibid. ("No Commission"); Edelman Lynchburg College, 112-113, 1145, 188 (rejecting argument satisfies VII's oath affirmation requirement). determines time limits procedural commence. illogical impractical dependent subsequent control. Logan Zimmerman Brush 455 422, 444, 1148, 71 265 (1982) (Powell, J., concurring judgment). III Having acted formulating behalf, test. says does, agree. determination exercise own course routine enforces. intake form contained outlined 1626.8, including: name, address, number, well victims "age discrimination"; worked Dunedin, Florida, facility where stationed; government regarding matter. 265. still deficient act. handwritten rise inference Unlike 5, labeled "Charge Discrimination," 275. fact wording opposite: form's facilitate "pre-charge counseling" enable jurisdiction "potential charges." instances indicated pervasive infer allegations themselves requested required, supplemented affidavit. At last page, asked "[p]lease *1160 plan finish careers absent unfairness hostile work environment created Best Practice/High-Velocity Culture Change." 273. ambiguous. accompanying "I given assurances Agent Affidavit considered confidential disclosed long open produce proceeding." 266. argues kept confidential, reads much into assurance nondisclosure. avoid contacting She understanding itself confidential. gave consent disclose "formal Furthermore, checked box identity Here combination waiver "force" stop bring entire here. notes 5 (a charge) complaint shows, argues, intend earlier otherwise, later filing. matters, interpreted Postfiling nullify earlier, Documents construed, interpretation, remedies. Construing drafter encourage precise expression contexts; here, undermine adopted. retaining counsel, increasing both cost likelihood IV interacts citizens countless forms, schedules, manuals, worksheets. Congress, most cases, delegates format instruments administer assumption decision delegate rulemaking agency, consequent determinations, ensure affected benefits protections law. failed sides lost ADEA's employer's interests, particular, shrift, notified court hears merits attempt remedy *1161 deficiency staying proceedings allow opportunity settlement. imperfect. Once adversary begun rigid cast attempted outset. unfortunate, but, unavoidable. powers fashion best possible situations one, ultimate responsibility establishing clearer, lies already changes charge-filing 3, 2 replaced reworded form). reduce risk misunderstandings assistance, determine, revisions appropriate. affirmed. ordered. THOMAS, whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. Today decides (ADEA) (EEOC) is. include form; contrary, included expressly "precharge" counseling. more, assign complainant's[1] allegations, commence Notwithstanding facts, concludes, counterintuitively, manifests "some action." Ante, 1156-1157. Because broader ordinary "charge," malleable effectively absolves obligation according discernible standards, respectfully dissent. notes, directs word. 1153-1154. nothing suggest art, construe accordance natural meaning." FDIC Meyer, 510 471, 476, 114 996, 308 (1994). Dictionaries accusation indictment. American Heritage Dictionary 312 (4th ed.2000); Webster's Third International 377 legal parlance, wrongdoing initiates wrongdoer. criminal law, example, defined "[a] offense preliminary step prosecution." Black's Law 248 (8th ed.2004). Similarly, *1162 objectively police report describes commission crime merely manifest proceedings, governing Accountability Office, "any investigate matter" 4 28.3 unfair labor practices, "purpose set [National Labor Relations] Board's investigative machinery." Flex Plastics, 262 N.L.R.B. 651, 652 (1982). charge's triggering investigation notice often anticipates usually released (Aug.2002) Manual) (providing correspondence processed if, "does express concerns confidentiality"); 3.6, 3:0001 "it copy impede law functions"). equally violated, violate, laws. (2007) (describing "has Act"). presented mattersthe EEOCto trigger violations (directing steps allegedly practice). therefore mean, minimum,[2] 15 "objectively accusation" violation). subjective, see, ante, 1157-1158 complainant "wants" processes), disagree "considered view."[3] *1163 event, processes; construes them is, my opinion, unreasonable unworthy cumulative aspects documents, holds, illustrates discrimination: first, second, marking consenting release (FedEx). 1159-1160. neither factors, separately substantive paragraph said: "Please discrimination. ." wanted cause company's means; immediately employ particular method consists Her "force met beginning interviewing counseling ultimately lead Or proceeded infra, 1166. (discussing absence charge). Alternately, indications repeated questionnaires, approached informally, forcing threat B. Lindemann Kadue, 470 (2003) ("The having *1164 conciliation"). That satisfied request. present lawyer he complaint. wrong action," 1156-1157, "whatever rights," 1157-1159, unspecified 1158. results Aside revealing ambiguity stretch beyond bear. mere help complainantwho, acknowledges, "have processes," 1157-1159 cannot equated permits principled distinguishing "pre-charge" actions, counseling, "agency presumably designed complainant's unrelated charge-processing plainly lacks grounding term. isolation, understood reflecting requisite amount fact, replete extensive assured 266, suggesting allegations. (stating expressing confidentiality treated identified "complaint." notarized attested truthfulness, nowhere authorized dispute. 266-274. Finally, questionnaire, indication Indeed, agreement contains numerous indicators "design employer," "[i]n opposite"). Questionnaire,"[4] *1165 information-gathering, Likewise, top anticipated: following questions, telling briefly why discriminated employment. officer talk complete form." gives keep Privacy back, prominently referenced front states provided "will existence potential charges, complaints pre-charge appropriate." (emphasis added). apparently believes trumped marked authorizing portion "Normally, your organization you. Do disclosure?" Since narrow identities complainants normally disclosed, checking converting one. comparison Charge clearly number. Exh. 2-C, 2:0009. Although sign attest correct, attestation intends procedures. above signature, local Agency, any. advise change cooperate fully processing procedures." "Charging party" bottom signature. back "[t]he recorded initially reduced invoke Commission." 2:0010. Also "ROUTINE USES," "[i]nformation guide Commission's activities." prefers 18, 9 "EEOC's preferred indeed whenever possible"), another *1166 chosen strong evidence overcome compels described, conclusion factors "were 1160, supported and, reveals sufficiently vacuous permit post hoc cannot, sanction adequately explained. Cf., Pearson 164 650, 660-661 (C.A.D.C. 1999) (equating denial party's based vague saying "no" explanation). malleability revealed "[t]here required." 1159. clarity pervasiveness irrelevant ibid., so, circumstancessuch "clear pervasive" discrimination "intent act" requirement.[5] Yet surprising: accepts via thorough process[6] questionnaires typically assist developing visiting questionnaire. FAQ, Answer "How discrimination?", online https://eeoc.custhelp.com. *1167 investigator conducts precharge interview, 2.4, 2:0001; P. Grossman, 1685 ed.2007), covering topics, laws, possibly confidentiality, limits, requirements, private 2.4(a)-(g), 2:0001-2:0003. Using gathered drafts instructions, containing background data. 2.5, 2:0003-2:0005. assigns begins serving investigating 1685-1690. Charges complainant. 115, members prepare review verify" (citing Amici 24)); Answers "Where obtain copies charge?" blank forms); ("When needs, counseled strengths weaknesses and/or (Form 5) signature"), notifies attaching form. ("While 1626.11 functions"); Inzeo Memorandum, http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/ memo-8-13-07.html. sure, prepared methods. visit office, interview telephone, 2.3, 2:0001, ("[A] either conforms 1626.6"). contact interview. 2.2(a), 2:0001. Alternatively, "contains begin investigating, timely act, retaliation," conducting while possibility circumstances, correspondence, questionnaireeven accompanied affidavit *1168 explained, preserve sue. implications reach Today's nothingabsolutely nothingto solve problem tell, ex Given utterly criteria, chargeand statutorily evaded future sensible renders cases complainants, employers, reverse below. NOTES [1] refer potentially-charging "complainants." simplicity distinction (2007). "respondent" regulationsreferring "prospective complaint," ibid.but reference responding [2] foreclose "charge." [3] varied 8, 16-17, 8. 1983, requirement. Final Procedural Regulations; Act, 48 Fed.Reg. 138. Five years later, argued curiae 544 1988) appeared Steffen's contention Questionnaire, itself, charge"). memorandum http://www.eeoc.gov/ charge/memo-2-21-02.html 22, 2008 must, "constitut[e] contradicted four again took Gordon Shafer Contracting 469 1191, 1194 (C.A.8 2006) ("In verified satisfying requirement"); updated Frequently Asked Questions section Web site, each. 2007) Memorandum), charge/memo-8-13-07.html; Questions, FAQ), [4] recent version Questionnaire," "[w]hen alleg[ed] discrimination, will, 1601.12(b) statute(s)." Manual, 1-B, 1:0006; 477, (2003). Questionnaire" dated "Test 10/94," used. 1987. [5] Perhaps called "Commissioner Charges." 1601.11(a) independent 626(a); 1626.4; Gilmer Interstate/Johnson Lane 500 20, 28, 111 1647, 26 (1991); 8.1, 8:0001 (June 2001). "required," 1159, standards evaluating [6] process, consistently since shortly assumed 1979. 2.1-2.7, 2:0001-2:0006; 1220 (3d ed.1996); Schlei 939-940, 942, 948 (2d ed.1983).

Category: 1