Case Name: Lateshia PATILLO Plaintiff-Appellant v. SYSCO FOODS OF ARKANSAS LLC Defendant-Appellee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amicus on Behalf of Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-06
Citations: 704 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 17-1110
Parties: Lateshia PATILLO Plaintiff-Appellant v. SYSCO FOODS OF ARKANSAS LLC Defendant-Appellee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amicus on Behalf of Appellant
Judges: Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Lateshia PATILLO Plaintiff-Appellant v. SYSCO FOODS OF ARKANSAS LLC Defendant-Appellee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amicus on Behalf of Appellant
No. 17-1110
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Filed: December 6, 2017
Lateshia Patillo, Pro Se
Dennis P. Duffy, Baker & Hostetler, Houston, TX, John T. Holleman, Holleman & Associates, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee
Jeremy D. Horowitz, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s)
Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lateshia Patillo appeals the district court's order dismissing her employment-discrimination action, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon de novo review, see Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 931 (8th Cir. 2011), we vacate the dismissal order and remand the case to the district court. The court is instructed to reconsider the issues in this case, including whether an intake questionnaire Patillo filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission constituted a valid administrative charge of discrimi nation, in light of Supreme Court precedent including Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008), and Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106, 122 S.Ct. 1145, 152 L.Ed.2d 188 (2002).