Supreme Court Rules Use of Wrong Form Doesn’t Bar Age Bias Suit
Updated: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that employees complaining of age discrimination at Federal Express satisfied legal requirements for filing a lawsuit even though they failed to file the usual form with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Lead plaintiff Patricia Kennedy had filled out Form 283, the intake questionnaire, but not Form 5 charging discrimination. The law requires plaintiffs to wait 60 days after filing an EEOC discrimination charge before filing suit, but does not fully define what a charge is.
The majority opinion (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog) by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the lead plaintiff had filed a detailed six-page affidavit along with the intake form. Kennedy sided with the government’s view that that an intake questionnaire can constitute a charge if it expresses the filer’s intent to activate the EEOC’s enforcement processes. In this case, Kennedy said, the information provided satisfied that test.
“It is true that under this permissive standard a wide range of documents might be classified as charges. But this result is consistent with the design and purpose of the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act],” Kennedy wrote. “The system must be accessible to individuals who have no detailed knowledge of the relevant statutory mechanisms and agency processes. It thus is consistent with the purposes of the act that a charge can be a form, easy to complete, or an informal document, easy to draft. The agency’s proposed test implements these purposes.”
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the majority holds that a charge of age discrimination “is whatever the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it is.” He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas formerly headed the agency.
Associated Press coverage of the ruling notes that Kennedy’s opinion criticized the the EEOC for failing to notify FedEx that 14 employees had filed a complaint. He said the lower court could seek to “remedy this deficiency” by staying the case to allow the company to negotiate a possible settlement with the employees.
The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki.
Updated at 10:06 a.m. to include information from the Associated Press.
