Document: 535 U.S. 106 EDELMANv.LYNCHBURG COLLEGE. No. 00-1072. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued January 8, 2002. Decided March 19, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 requires that a "charge" employment discrimination be filed with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "within [a specified number of] days after alleged unlawful ... practice occurred," § 706(e)(1), and charge "be in writing under oath or affirmation," 706(b). An EEOC regulation permits an otherwise timely filer to verify time for filing has expired. After respondent Lynchburg College denied academic tenure petitioner Edelman, he faxed letter November 1997, claiming had subjected him genderbased, national origin, religious discrimination. Edelman made no affirmation. The advised file within applicable 300-day limit sent Form 5 Charge Discrimination, which returned 313 was tenure. subsequently sued Virginia state court on various state-law claims, but later added cause action. then removed case federal moved dismiss, Edelman's failure verified period bar subject-matter jurisdiction. replied his 1997 regulation, verification related back letter. District dismissed complaint, finding not because neither nor treated it as one. Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding VII's plain language foreclosed relationback regulation. reasoned that, must limitations period, follows period. Held: EEOC's relation-back is unassailable interpretation 706. Pp. 112-119. (a) There nothing reading require by definition. nowhere defines "charge." Section 706(b) merely verified, without saying when; 706(e)(1) provides given indicating whether when filed. Neither provision incorporates other so give definition necessary implication. Circuit's assumption §§ (e)(1) read one, defined "under doubtful structural logical leap. Nor gap bridged commonsense rule statutes are whole, see States v. Morton, 467 U. S. 822, 828, two quite different objectives timing requirements prevent subsume them both limitation meant encourage potential charging party raise claim before gets stale, while requirement intended protect employers from disruption expense responding unless complainant serious enough sure support subject liability perjury. latter object, however, demands only employer obliged respond charge, at employee files EEOC. statute thus open addresses legitimate question. 112-113. (b) College's argument addressed substantive issue over rulemaking power simply recast just rejected. Moreover, there need resolve degree deference reviewing courts owe this finds reasonable, states position would adopt were interpreting scratch. 113-114. (c) Although forestall catchpenny claims disgruntled necessarily aggrieved employees, Congress presumably did mean affect nature remedial scheme laypersons, rather than lawyers, expected initiate process, see, e. g., Commercial Office Products Co., 486 107, 124. Construing 706 permit relation omitted original ensures lay complainant, who may know filing, will risk forfeiting rights inadvertently. At same time, looks out employer's interest refusing call any response sufficient complaint until been supplied. This hard pressed take deciding, Becker Montgomery, 532 757, 765, comply Federal Rule Procedure 11's signature dismissal unsigned notice appeal prevented cure defect. reason think here less reasonable Becker. In fact, passing strange disagree even Becker, long history judicial supports cure. legislative indicates amended several times once casting doubt construction. 115-118. (d) Court's judgment does reach conclusion notes, view some factual level admittedly failed 706(e)(1)'s "notice served upon person charge[d] ten days" counsel agrees Government significance delayed remand. 118-119. 228 F. 3d 503, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, C. STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 119. O'CONNOR, judgment, SCALIA, joined, 120. Eric Schnapper argued petitioner. With briefs Elaine Charlson Bredehoft. Lisa Blatt et al. amici curiae urging reversal. her brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Boyd, Deputy Clement, Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Philip B. Sklover, Barbara L. Sloan. Alexander W. Bell respondent. Mary V. Barney.* JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 redress 1964, amended, certain conduct alleged, 78 Stat. 259, 42 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994 ed.), affirm swear allegations true, 2000e-5(b). validity permitting We sustain 2 * On June 6, Leonard field office 14, "gender-based discrimination, exacerbated basis origin religion." App. 52. 3 26, lawyer wrote requesting interview investigator stating "understanding delay occasioned compromise date, remain 1997." Id., 54. arrange member office. Without referring lawyer's letter, reminded "a limits imposed law." 57. case, 300 discriminatory practice.1 4 interview, Discrimination review April 15, 1998, denial tenure, received 5, forwarded response. completing investigation, issued right sue. first action VII, 2000e-2(a)(1). 29 CFR 1601.12(b) (1997),2 6 found, meaning Pet. Cert. 22-24, consequence could relate back. ground equitable tolling requirements, remanded claims. 24-25. 7 A divided panel Appeals affirmed. 512 (CA4 2000). majority held allowing earlier charge. provisions VII3 interdependent defining "charge": "Because ..., period,... period." 508. 8 Judge Luttig concurred judgment. 512-513. He said although probably "the better interpretation" statute, id., 513, its one compelled language, "bound deference" construction, ibid. nonetheless joined reasons. 9 Because conflict among Courts Appeals,4 we granted certiorari, 533 928 (2001), now reverse. II 10 2000e-5, governs charges "[c]harges" affirmation contain[ing] such information form requires." "[a] shall hundred eighty [or cases, three hundred] occurred." 2000e-5(e)(1). 11 "charge," likewise undefined elsewhere statute. verified; 12 common sense 828 (1984). together facially inconsistent, doing ignore stand way point sake reliable result speedy end illegal proves out.5 object protecting perjury.6 accordingly Questionable word. B 13 Before touch merits position, threshold matters about status can short shrift. agency's exceeded authority "suitable procedural regulations," 2000e-12(a), instead power, Arabian American Oil 499 244, 257 (1991); Elec. Co. Gilbert, 429 125, 141 (1976). argues "alter[s] included statute," Brief Respondent 32-33, really more argument; restating rejected, accusation. 14 insignificant however prominent much litigation goes agency rulemaking, owed courts. agree amicus Chevron A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 837, 843-844 (1984), exercise express notice-and-comment power,7 Amici Curiae n. 11; observed Mead Corp., 218, 230-231 (2001) ("[W]e have sometimes found reasons administrative formality required none afforded"). But question here. find if formal clearly EEOC, occasion defer asking what kind deference, how much.8 C 15 starts down road conciliation, enforcement, small thing called respond. As before, provide insurance against disgruntled, aggrieved, employees. requiring affirmation, process." 124 (1988); Love Pullman 404 522, 527 (1972). supplied.9 16 deciding 757 last Term. considered entailed district signed content "jurisdictional nature," defect, S., 765. Both aimed stemming urge litigate irresponsibly, good law, bad agency.10 17 Where supplemental oath,11 shown high consistency accepting reaching earlier, unverified filing.12 background law persuades regularity points tacit congressional approval being presumed known settled treatment enacted VII.13 18 presumption complemented fact times14 construction.15 During debates 1972, amending text regulations, including predecessor 1601.12(b), placed Congressional Record. 118 Cong. Rec. 718 By six years old, upheld applied courts.16 repudiating "suggests consent Commission's practice." Associated Dry Goods 449 590, 600, (1981); also Shell 466 54, 69 III 19 hold therefore Our not, drawn single judge Appeals, It say their support. whom 2000e-5(b) (e)(1), Government's acknowledged oral "comply obligation notice," receiving 1997. Tr. Oral Arg. 16. agreed 9-10, 17. 20 Accordingly, reverse remand further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 ordered. Notes: Ann Elizabeth Reesman Rae T. Vann Advisory Council affirmance. Paula Brantner National Lawyers Association curiae. generally 180 applies "institute[s] State local grant seek relief" practicesIbid.; 110 (1988). agency, operating work-sharing agreement See Tinsley First Union Nat. Bank, 155 435, 439-442 1998). relevant part receives making written statement sufficiently precise identify parties, describe practices complained of. technical defects omissions, clarify amplify therein. Such amendments alleging additional acts constitute growing matter date received." reads "[w]henever behalf Commission, engaged practice, serve days, make investigation thereof. Charges contain section occurred thereafter, except respect initially instituted relief Compare,e. 509 2000) (case below); Shempert Harwick Chemical 151 793, 796-797 (CA8 1998), Philbin Electric Capital Auto Lease, 929 2d 321, 323-324 (CA7 1991) (per curiam); Peterson Wichita, 888 1307, 1308 (CA10 1989), cert. denied, 495 932 (1990); Casavantes California Univ., 732 1441, 1443 (CA9 1984); Price Southwestern Tel. 687 74, 77, (CA5 1982). SeeDelaware Ricks, 250, 256-257 (1980) ("Limitations periods, guaranteeing protection civil laws those promptly assert rights, burden defending arising decisions past"). SeeEEOC 76, 32 (1984) ("The function impress taker awareness duty tell truth"). utilize procedures. 713(a) regulations conformity standards limitations" Administrative Act, 551-559. 2000e-12(a) ed.). And 553(b), excepts "rules organization, procedure, practice" procedures We, course, do "only permissible." SeeCommercial Products, 125 (O'Connor, judgment). might, example, decided test complainant's seriousness expends effort prior interview. Justice O'Connor suggests, 122 (opinion judgment), recognizing implies sphere appropriate, resolves all Chevron, 234 issues deference. general staff members prepare verify, clarified. asAmici 24. submit employer. prejudiced these "there deadline verifying charge." 34, 26. our challenges per se, understanding standard caution complainants they fail follow up initial proceed complaint. 57; note 15(c) Rules pleadings circumstances See,e. C(6) Supplemental Certain Admiralty Maritime Claims ("[A] asserts property [civil forfeiture] identifying right"). Currency Amount $103,387.27, 863 555, 561-563 1988); Johnston Broadcasting FCC, 175 351, 355-356 (CADC 1949); 5A Wright & Miller, Practice 1339, 150 (2d ed. 1990) ("Even verification, render document fatally defective"). Armstrong Fernandez, 208 324, 330 (1908), approved bankruptcy court's allowance nunc pro tunc petition Bankruptcy 1898. State-court been, greater part, federal. See, Farm Workers Am. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 37 Cal. 912, 915, 694 P. 138, 140 (1985) (en banc); Easter Seal Soc. Disabled Children Berry, 627 482, 489 (D. 1993); Maliszewski Human Comm'n, 269 Ill. 472, 474-477, 646 N. E. 625, 626-628 (1995); Workman Workman, 46 718, 724 (Ind. 1943) Pulliam Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 499-500, 183 220, 222-223 (1947); Southside Civic Assn. Warrington, 93-0890, pp. 3-4 (La. 4/1/94), 635 So. 721, 723-724, pet. writ 94-1219 7/1/94), 639 1168; Drury Displays, Board Adjustment, 760 112, 114 (Mo. 1998); Chisholm Vocational School Girls, 103 Mont. 506-509, 64 838, 841-842 (1936); re Estate Sessions, 217 Ore. 340, 347-349, 341 512, 516-517 (1959); ex rel. Williams Jones, 164 823, 826 (Tenn. 1942); Greene Pac. Stages, 182 Wash. 143, 145, 45 611, 612 (1935). Dinwiddie County Comm'rs, M. 442, 445, 708 1043, 1046 (1985), 476 1117 (1986) (denying leave amend dismissing contesting election). SeeNorth Star Steel Thomas, 515 29, 34 (1995) ("`[I]t appropriate realistic presume thoroughly familiar [our] precedents expect[s] enactment[s] interpreted them'" (citation omitted)). Pub. 102-166, 105 1075; 92-261, 86 104. became inconsistent passed 1972 legislation. 20-25, 37. during floor debate Senate version (S. 2515) Senator Allen noted committee oath, proposed amendment define "`mean accusation supported affirmation.'" 4815 expressed preserved believed existing "charges writing."Ibid. confirmed Williams, bill's manager, suggested "one coverall, blanket" Allen, beginning Ibid. So modified, adopted voice vote into law. Besides refining extended basic 90 210 deferral notify above-described exchange phrasing requirement, charge-filing 706(e), advocates "congressional compromise." asked, words, conclude lengthened Congress, evidence quid quo is, equivocal. Blue Boots, 418 355, 357 (CA6 1969); Georgia Power 412 462, 466-467 Weeks Southern 408 228, Choate Caterpillar Tractor 402 357, 359-360 1968). 22 concurring. 23 authorized (EEOC) "to issue, amend, rescind suitable carry [Title VII]. Regulations of" (APA). promulgated (1997) pursuant clear statutory regulations. 1601.1 set forth established carrying responsibilities administration enforcement title ..." (emphasis added)). I concur possessed promulgate proscribed APA. 24 SCALIA joins, 25 today holds "would [the Court] scratch." Ante, 114. most natural regarding 2000e-5 But, least somewhat ambiguous, interpretation. (1984); (1988) judgment) ("[D]eference [to EEOC] particularly type procedure"). (1997), should sustained alternative basis. 26 "charges" affirmation." "charge[s]" definitional, allegation second specifies That subsections Davis Michigan Dept. Treasury, 803, 809 (1989) ("It fundamental canon construction words context place overall scheme"). Surprisingly, best precisely opposite — says "clearly agree[s] EEOC" ante, 27 Despite possible 2000e, expressly terms, word all. affirmation" framed say, explicitly incorporate suggests it, independent satisfied simultaneously. therefore, cannot "unambiguously [its] intent" 843 added). Given ambiguity, decision [becomes] [position] based permissible ibid., or, "reasonable," 845. If so, "controlling weight," 844. 28 "`a process.'" 115 (quoting supra, 124). Permitting helps ensure inadvertently forfeit rights. consistent, explains, common-law verifications 116-117. For reasons, sustained. reserved entitled reserve simultaneously maintaining, does, 114-115, free change To ambiguous choice suggest countenance (because must) choice. Indeed, cites proposition premised idea 125-126 30 have, previously interpret receive consideration according Skidmore Swift 323 134, (1944). (1991) ("[T]he afforded judgment] `will depend thoroughness evident consideration, reasoning, pronouncements, factors persuade, lacking control'") Skidmore, 140); 141-142 has, "authority here, Fed. Civ. Proc. (establishing rules Procedure). Thus, recognizes, 113-114, exercising delegated rule. 31 originally undergoing noticeand-comment procedures, repromulgated 1977. Reg. 42022, 42023 (1977); 55388, 55389. recognized 218 notice-andcomment "significant pointing authority," "overwhelming cases applying reviewed fruits adjudication." 230-231. why repromulgation promulgation Cf. Smiley Citibank (South Dakota), A., 517 735, 741 (1996) (giving full-dress designed assure deliberation" though prompted litigation). codified Code Regulations, binding parties coming well itself. regard, distinguishable Customs Service ruling letters 233, third changeable notice, Christensen Harris County, 529 576, 587 (2000) lacked force law," framework apply contained regulation"). 33 believe

Category: 1