Opinion ID: 3010901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EEOC Charges and The Complaint

Text: Between May 21 and July 30, 1992, the appellantsfiled charges of sex and/or race, color, and national origin discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC and the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (NJDCR). The charges of the female appellants alleged that 1) they were subjected to terms and conditions of employment less favorable than that accorded of [sic] male mailers, including but not limited to being denied equal numbers of work shifts; 2) that they complained about the discriminatory treatment accorded them; 3) that [s]uch discriminatory terms and conditions of employment was [sic] even more intensified and continued throughout [their] tenure; 4) that they were discriminated against with respect to wages, benefits, abusive atmosphere and other terms and conditions of employment, because of sex and retaliation; and 5) that [t]he discrimination ... is a part of a pattern and practice of sex discrimination that resulted from a 15 continuing and intentional policy of sex discrimination by respondents, which predates 1980.17 The charges of the male appellants included all the allegations made by female appellants, with the exception of the first one. In addition, the male appellants alleged that the men were discriminatorily treated because [their] priority number[s] on the workplace seniority list [were] in between the priority numbers of the women mailers. Such discrimination was based on sex.18 The charges of the Hispanic appellants included all the allegations made by female appellants (with the exception of the one Hispanic male appellant, whose charges included the allegations made by the male appellants). In addition, the Hispanic appellants alleged that they were accorded less favorable terms and conditions of employment than that accorded White . . . mailers and that the pattern of discrimination to which they were subjected also was based on race, national origin and color discrimination by Respondents, which predates 1980.19 On September 17, 1992, appellants' counsel wrote to the EEOC, requesting right to sue letters because he had been informed by the EEOC that it could not complete its investigation within 180 days. Each appellant received a notice of right to sue, dated October 5, 1992. This action was filed in federal District Court on June 25, 1992. On August 24, appellants' counsel faxed a copy of the complaint to the EEOC. On September 17, twenty two of the appellants filed new charges with the EEOC. In the second group of charges, the appellants alleged retaliation by appellees as a result of their filing of the initial charges and the instant lawsuit. The EEOC apparently did not issue right to sue letters regarding the allegations of retaliation.