U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Filing a "Charge" with the EEOC
In order to start a lawsuit under many Federal laws, including Title VII, a plaintiff must first secure the “right to sue” from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In order to obtain a “right to sue” from the EEOC, a plaintiff must first file a charge with the EEOC in timely fashion.
Against that backdrop, the U.S. Supreme Court just clarified what constitutes a “charge” with the EEOC in its recent decision in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowekci. In Holowecki, the plaintiff sought to start a claim by filling out an “Intake Questionnaire” with the EEOC, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and subsequently filed a lawsuit. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiff had not filed a “charge” with the EEOC.
The U.S. Supreme Court, adopting the analysis of the EEOC, held that a person files a “charge” with the EEOC when the filing, taken as a whole, is a “request” for the agency to take action on the individual’s behalf. Rather than considering the form that is filled out, as the defendant argued, the proper inquiry should be whether the request is for the EEOC to do something, such as investigate a claim, as opposed to a simple request for information from the agency.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Holowecki, rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff's submission was insufficient because they did not file a charge form and because the EEOC did not process the Intake Questionnaire as a charge. The Court, however, held that the plaintiff's submission constituted a charge because it was accompanied by a six-page affidavit asking the EEOC to “please force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan so we can finish our careers absent the unfairness and hostile environment...” This simple plea for help was enough to transform the submission from a simple request for information into a charge that served as the basis for a lawsuit. The Supreme Court looked at substance rather than form alone. The Court specifically noted that the EEOC advocated this exact position, and that it reached this holding based on the EEOC’s interpretation of its rules.
