Opinion ID: 164001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Framework of the ADA

Text: 8 Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-17. Title II of the ADA addresses public services and entities discrimination, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65, while Title III addresses accommodations and services discrimination. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89. Title I is unique from Title II and III in that Title I incorporates the powers, remedies, and procedures of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. § 12117. 1 Therefore Congress has directed the EEOC to exercise the same enforcement powers, remedies, and procedures that are set forth in Title VII ... when it is enforcing the ADA's prohibitions against employment discrimination on the basis of disability. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 285, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002). The provisions of Title VII that define the EEOC's authority and create the federal scheme of enforcement thus provide the framework for our analysis. 9 The Supreme Court discussed at length the EEOC's function and the overall enforcement scheme in Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 358-73, 97 S.Ct. 2447, 53 L.Ed.2d 402 (1977). Although the EEOC originally was involved only in conciliation efforts, with the enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Congress established an integrated, multi-step enforcement procedure culminating in the EEOC's authority to bring a civil action in a federal court. Id. at 359, 97 S.Ct. 2447. The process is initiated when an aggrieved party first files a charge with the EEOC alleging that an employer engaged in an unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the challenged action. Id. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The statute provides for an extended 300-day filing period in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief. Id.; see Smith v. Oral Roberts Evangelistic Ass'n, Inc., 731 F.2d 684, 687-88 (10th Cir.1984). 2 The EEOC serves notice on the employer within ten days of the filing. § 2000e-5(b). 10 Once a charge is filed, the EEOC investigates the charges. Id. The EEOC has exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for 180 days. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754. If the EEOC determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, it dismisses the charge and notifies the person aggrieved. § 2000e-5(b). However, if the EEOC determines there is reasonable cause to believe the charge is true, the EEOC attempts to eliminate the unlawful practice through informal means. Id. If the EEOC is unable to obtain an acceptable conciliation agreement, the EEOC may bring a civil action against the employer. Id. § 2000e-5(f)(1). If the EEOC decides to sue, the employee has no independent cause of action, although the employee may intervene in the EEOC's suit. Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754; see § 2000e-5(f)(1). However, if a 11 charge filed with the Commission ... is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge ..., the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section ..., or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge. 12 Id. (emphasis added). The notice by the Commission to the aggrieved individual is commonly known as a right-to-sue letter. Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754. 13 In Occidental, the Supreme Court held that EEOC enforcement actions are not subject to state statutes of limitation, but rather that the federal enforcement structure itself provides the time limitations for EEOC actions. 432 U.S. at 372, 97 S.Ct. 2447. The Court held it was inappropriate to apply state statutes of limitations to the EEOC's actions, stating that absorption of state limitations would be inconsistent with the congressional intent underlying the enactment of the 1972 amendments. Id. at 369, 97 S.Ct. 2447. The Court instead held that the procedural framework itself provides a statute of limitations, with the benchmark measured not by some end date but rather by the commencement of the proceeding before the administrative body. Id. at 372, 97 S.Ct. 2447. 14