|
|
|
  Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008)
Ford & Harrison LLP - March 10, 2008 Is an intake questionnaire filed with the EEOC sufficient to be considered a discrimination charge? It depends. On February 27, the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 vote in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki that a former employee who filed an intake questionnaire supported by a detailed affidavit had filed a charge that entitled her to file an ADEA suit. The Supreme Court decided that a document filed with the EEOC that requests action to protect the employee’s rights or to settle a dispute with the employer constitutes a discrimination charge under the ADEA.  A Charge, by Any Other Name, Is Still a Charge: High Court Adopts Broad Definition in Age Cases.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 06, 2008 In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), the Court ruled that the completion of an EEOC Intake Questionnaire with a supporting affidavit satisfied the mandatory charge prerequisite under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). One of the plaintiffs in the case filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but only after she sued the former employer, FedEx, for age discrimination in federal court. The ADEA requires that a charge be filed with the EEOC before a lawsuit can be filed against the employer, and it specifically imposes a 60-day waiting period after the charge is filed before litigation can be commenced. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and yhe Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit allowing the suit against FedEx to proceed based on its conclusion that the plaintiff's Intake Questionnaire and affidavit satisfied the statutory charge requirement. Supreme Court Endorses EEOC Definition of "Charge" under ADEA (pdf).Vedder Price - March 05, 2008 In its second pro-employee decision in two days, the Supreme Court held that a charging party need not fi le
a formal charge with the EEOC to satisfy the administrative charge-fi ling requirement. All that is required is
that the person fi le documents with the EEOC that can be “reasonably construed as a request for the agency
to take remedial action to protect the employee’s rights.”
In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), four couriers brought a lawsuit
claiming age discrimination in connection with new performance programs rolled out by the company. Only
one of the claimants fi led any papers with the EEOC before fi ling suit. That claimant had submitted an Intake
Questionnaire accompanied by a sworn affi davit that asked the EEOC to “please force Federal Express to end
their age discrimination.” The company did not receive notice of the claim before suit was fi led. The district
court dismissed the lawsuit but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affi rmed
the court of appeals. Supreme Court Defers to EEOC in Pleading Case.Ogletree Deakins - March 04, 2008 For the second consecutive day, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important employment law decision. Today, in a 7-2 ruling, the high court held that submitting an "intake questionnaire" and a detailed affidavit to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is equivalent to filing a charge for purposes of the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). According to the majority: "The agency's determination that respondent's December 2001 filing was a charge is a reasonable exercise of its authority to apply its own regulations and procedures in the course of the routine administration of the statute it enforces." Formal Charge of Discrimination Not Required Where Filing Requests EEOC Action Says Supreme Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 28, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has held by a 7-2 vote that a formal "charge" of discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not essential to satisfy regulatory requirements under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") where a filing generally alleges discriminatory acts and can be construed as a request for the agency to act. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008). An Intake Questionnaire, in conjunction with a six-page affidavit, filed by the respondent with the EEOC in 2001 met the test, the Court said.
|
Employment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsEmployment Law Breakfast Briefings`Kenner
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds