Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=8d93e03b-15ec-4d1b-a2cf-93aa1564e91f
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 21:46:24
Document Index: 359141837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 626', '§ 1626', '§ 1626', '§ 1626', '§ 626', '§ 1626', '§ 1626', '§ 1626']

A Charge, by Any Other Name, Is Still a Charge: High Court Adopts Broad Definition in Age Cases | Littler - JDSupra
The U.S. Supreme Court in Federal Express Corp. v. HOlowecki ruled that employees who claim workplace discrimination can satisfy their statutory obligation to file and EEOC charge by submitting any paperwork that asks the agency to take some kind of action.
by Any Other Name, Is Still High Court Adopts Broad Definition in Age Cases By: The United States Supreme Court has adopted a very broad definition of what constitutes a "charge" for purposes of employers for discrimination. It is also an example of the judiciary's general reluctance to dismiss a case based on Corp. v. No. 06-Court ruled that the completion of an EEOC Intake Questionnaire with a supporting affidavit satisfied the mandatory charge prerequisite under the Age of the Equal Commission but FedEx, age discrimination in federal court. The ADEA requires that a charge be filed with the EEOC before a lawsuit can be filed against the employer, and it specifically imposes a 60-day waiting period after the charge is filed before can court dismissed complaint. The Second and the against FedEx on its conclusion that the plaintiff's charge the case, each by FedEx of the ADEA. Charge the EEOC before pursuing their an EEOC Intake Questionnaire and an affidavit. Other plaintiffs relied upon those filings to satisfy their statutory seek redress through the EEOC. by FedEx. included a request that the EEOC force Federal to The ADEA provides that "[n]o civil action may be commenced by an individual under this section until 60 days after a charge alleging unlawful discrimination has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.1 That that, "shall promptly notify" charge and "shall promptly seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, Notably, the does not define the term, "charge." In EEOC has defined "charge" – sort of. says that "[a] shall be in allege the discriminatory act(s)."2 The regulations also state that a charge "should" contain certain specific information including, among other things, the identity of the charging party, identity of the employer, and "a clear and concise statement of the facts" constituting the alleged discrimination.3 The very same section, however, provides that "a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives ... either a written statement or information reduced to writing by the Commission that conforms to the requirements of Sec. 1626.6."4 The EEOC has created a "Charge The agency sign a completed Charge Discrimination form before taking enforcement action. In the Holowecki case, an Intake Questionnaire and affidavit were submitted to the EEOC in December 2001. In April 2002, the plaintiffs sued FedEx for age discrimination in Later, a Charge of Discrimination was filed with the EEOC. The field office that Intake Questionnaire and affidavit did not treat those filings as a charge. As a result, the EEOC did not fulfill its obligation to promptly notify FedEx and explore conciliation. The federal was the plaintiffs' allegations. The opportunity for pre-suit conciliation, mandated by the ADEA, was lost. moved for dismissal of the lawsuit did not comply with the ADEA's court agreed and dismissed case. Second and that court's dismissal. The Court's Ruling faced with term is used in the ADEA? answering EEOC while at the the case address Circuit had previously held that trigger the EEOC's The Ninth Circuit had held that 6 Sixth a formal charge.7 Ruling for the employees in Holowecki, the Supreme Court determined that the questionnaire and affidavit, taken ASAPs National A Charge, by Any Other Name, Is Still a Charge: High Court Adopts Broad Definition Cases March 2008 Kerry L. Middleton Court has adopted a very broad definition purposes federal discrimination suits. The ruling is a victory for employees, essentially making it easier for them to sue their is also an example of the judiciary's general reluctance to dismiss a case based what might be considered a technicality. In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), the Court ruled that the completion of an EEOC satisfied mandatory charge Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). One of the plaintiffs in the case filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but only after she sued the former employer, FedEx, for court. The ADEA a charge with the EEOC specifically charge litigation can be commenced. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit allowing the suit against FedEx to proceed based on its conclusion that the plaintiff's Intake Questionnaire and affidavit satisfied the statutory charge requirement. Procedural Background There were 14 plaintiffs in the case, each alleging age discrimination by FedEx in violation of the ADEA. None of them filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC before pursuing their claims in court. One of them did file Intake Questionnaire and an affidavit. Other plaintiffs relied upon those filings to satisfy their obligation to first seek redress through the EEOC. The completed questionnaire included, among other things, a general allegation of age discrimination by FedEx. The affidavit included a request that the EEOC "force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan." provides that "[n]by individual the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.1 section also provides that, upon receipt of a charge, the EEOC "shall promptly notify" the employer named in the conference, and persuasion." Notably, the ADEA does not define the term, "charge." In its regulations, however, the has defined "charge" -The EEOC says that "[a] charge shall be in writing and shall name the prospective respondent and shall generally 2 specific of the employer, and a statement the alleged discrimination.3 The receives ... either a written by the Commission that conforms to the requirements of Sec. 1626.6."4 The EEOC specific form entitled "Charge of Discrimination." The agency requires complainants to sign a completed Charge of the Holowecki Questionnaire the EEOC in December 2001. In sued FedEx federal court. Later, a Charge of Discrimination was filed with the EEOC. The EEOC field office that received the those filings as a charge. As the EEOC did not fulfill statutory obligation to promptly notify FedEx and explore conciliation. The federal lawsuit was FedEx's first notice of allegations. The for pre-suit conciliation, mandated by the ADEA, FedEx moved for dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not comply with the ADEA's charge requirement. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court revived the suit by reversing the trial court's dismissal. The Supreme Court was faced with two issues. First, what constitutes a "charge" as that term is used in the ADEA? Second, did the Intake Questionnaire and affidavit meet the charge requirement? In answering those questions, the Court deferred to the EEOC while at the same time admonishing the agency to establish "a clearer, more consistent process." Apparently, the Court took the case to address confusion among the federal courts of appeal regarding what constitutes a charge. The Second Circuit had previously held that an Intake Questionnaire can be a charge if it indicates an intent to trigger the EEOC's enforcement powers.5 The Ninth Circuit had held that a completed Intake Questionnaire, standing alone, satisfied the charge requirement.The Sixth Circuit had more strictly construed the definition, requiring a formal charge.7 the Court determined that affidavit, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=8d93e03b-15ec-4d1b-a2cf-93aa1564e91ftogether, constituted a discrimination charge. It concluded that an EEOC filing meets the definition of a "charge" if it contains an allegation of discrimination, names the employer, and can be "reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer the analysis comes down whether papers filed with the EEOC ask the agency to do something. As amicus curiae, the EEOC argued that the questionnaire and affidavit did meet its definition of a "charge." The that treat the questionnaire and affidavit as a charge December noting that EEOC's "request-Court focused the affidavit in which the EEOC force Federal The plaintiffs had requested action by the EEOC. sharp dissenting (Scalia) took issue with the Chair the EEOC, opined that request-to-act test is "so malleable that it effectively absolves the EEOC according to discernible standards." He further declared that the Court's ruling in "nothing – to solve the problem that under the EEOC's processes tell, required notice the employer will in the notable for it. also willingness to interpret may limit in many ADEA cases based on the plaintiff's failure to administrative EEOC before filing suit, it exhaust resolve under the ADEA. definition of "charge" for other types of discrimination (e.g., Title VII) ADEA definition. Therefore, the Holowecki request-to-act test may not be limited to ADEA cases. The Court's broad to a low standard that will not difficult 29 S.C. § 626(2 29 C.F.R. § 1626.6. 29 F.R. § 1626.8(29 F.R. § 1626.8(5 See Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1988). See Casavantes v. California State. Univ., Sacramento, 732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1984) See Dorn v. General Motors Corp., 131 Fed. Appx. 462 (6th Cir. 2005). Kerry L. Middleton is a Shareholder in Littler's Minneapolis office. If you would like further information, please contact your Littler attorney at 1.888.Littler, info@littler.com, or Mr. Middleton at kmiddleton@littler.com. ASAPTM is published by Littler Mendelson in order to review the latest developments in employment law. ASAP is designed to provide accurate and informative information and should not be considered legal advice. © 2008 Littler Mendelson. All rights reserved. concluded an EEOC filing meets the definition and the employee." Thus, under the Court's ruling, the analysis comes down to whether papers filed with the EEOC curiae, the argued that the questionnaire and affidavit did meet charge." The agency made that argument despite the fact that it did not treat the questionnaire and affidavit as a charge when they were filed in December 2001. The Court agreed with the EEOC, noting that charging parties often do not have counsel when they contact the agency regarding alleged discrimination. After adopting the EEOC's "request-to-act" test, the Court focused on the affidavit in which the EEOC was asked to "force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan." The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had requested action by the EEOC. Therefore, the lawsuit against FedEx can continue. In a rather sharp dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) took issue with the majority's conclusion. Obviously drawing upon his experience as former Chair of the EEOC, Justice Thomas opined that the majority's request-to-act test is "so malleable that it effectively absolves the EEOC of its obligation to administer the ADEA according to discernible standards." He further declared that the Court's ruling in the case "does nothing -absolutely nothing --to solve the problem that under the EEOC's current processes no one can tell, ex ante, whether a particular filing is or is not a charge" and warned that "the statutorily required notice to the employer and conciliation process will be evaded in the future as it has been in this case." Implications Holowecki is notable for the Court's willingness to defer to a federal agency even while scolding it. It also demonstrates the Court's willingness to interpret statutory requirements quite liberally to allow plaintiffs their day in court. The impact could be far reaching. From a practical standpoint, it may limit in many ADEA cases an employer's procedural defense based on the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. If a plaintiff has almost any written communication with the EEOC before filing suit, it may be much more difficult for an employer to prevail on a failure-to-exhaust defense. Although the Court may have set out to resolve disagreement among the federal circuits, it is questionable whether the Holowecki ruling provides any meaningful guidance regarding what is and what is not a charge of discrimination under the ADEA. In addition, the EEOC's definition of "charge" for other types of discrimination (e.g., Title VII) is very similar to its definition. request-may not be limited to ADEA cases. definition of a "charge" appears to set a low standard that will not be difficult for plaintiffs to meet in employment litigation. 1 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). 29 R. § 1626.6. 3 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8(a). 4 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8(b). See Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th 6 See Casavantes v. California State. Univ., Sacramento, 732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1984) (Title VII case). 7 See Dorn v. General Motors Corp., 131 Fed. Appx. 462 (6th in Littler's office. If please info@com, or Mr. Middleton is published by Littler Mendelson in order to review the latest developments in employment law. ASAP is designed to provide accurate and should not be considered 2008 Littler Mendelson. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=8d93e03b-15ec-4d1b-a2cf-93aa1564e91f