The Supreme Court Attempts to Clarify What Constitutes a "Charge" of Discrimination Under the ADEA
On February 27, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a document filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that can reasonably be construed as a request for action to protect the employee’s rights or otherwise settle a dispute with the employer constitutes a discrimination “charge” within the meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision reviving a potential ADEA class action brought by current and former couriers over the age of 40, who alleged that Federal Express disparately applied its performance standards in an effort to force out older couriers before they qualified for retirement benefits.
Under the ADEA, an employee is required to file a “charge” of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the discriminatory conduct prior to filing a lawsuit. However, because the term “charge” is not defined in the ADEA, federal courts have adopted numerous definitions of that term, which, in turn, has led to a variety of interpretations as to whether an employee is entitled to pursue his or her ADEA claim in a court of law.
In Holowecki, the Court addressed the long-standing question of whether an employee alleging discrimination initiates a claim (and stops the statute of limitations) by filing what the EEOC refers to as an “intake questionnaire.” In that case, the plaintiff submitted to the EEOC a completed intake questionnaire and an affidavit alleging that the company discriminated against older couriers. Although the EEOC did not initiate administrative proceedings in response to the filing of the intake questionnaire, the employee subsequently filed suit. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that the employee failed to satisfy the ADEA charge filing requirement. However, on appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, concluded that the intake questionnaire did in fact serve as a “charge.”
In its argument to the Supreme Court, Federal Express argued that courts should not treat an EEOC intake questionnaire as a “charge” because the EEOC itself had failed to do so and failed to initiate the administrative process. However, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the ADEA only requires the employee to file a charge before filing suit, and the employee’s right to sue doesn’t depend on the EEOC actually taking action.
Despite its assertion that the EEOC’s internal directives failed to provide a thorough and consistent definition for the term “charge,” the Supreme Court adopted the EEOC’s position that the proper test in such instances is whether the filing at issue should be construed as a request by the employee for the EEOC to take action to protect the employee’s rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee. Therefore, in applying this test in Holowecki, the Supreme Court held that the intake questionnaire, when combined with the affidavit, constituted a “charge” for purposes of the ADEA.
