Butler v. Greif, Inc.

Butler v. Greif, Inc.

Opinion

 [*748]  PER CURIAM:

This is an employment discrimination case, brought by Hugh T. Butler, Sr., against his former employer, Greif, Inc. ("Greif"), under the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act  [*749]  ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). ¹ The district court granted Greif summary judgment because Butler failed properly to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). He now appeals.

Prior to bringing this lawsuit, Butler  [**2] had to file a charge with the EEOC under oath or affirmation. 42 U.S. C. § 2000e-5(b). Butler's charge, which was submitted by his attorney, was not verified at the time it was filed; nor was it verified while the charge was pending before the EEOC. Butler argues that his attorney's signature on the charge was sufficient and that, if not, he could cure the lack of verification even after the EEOC dismissed his case for failing to cooperate. He also argues that Greif waived its right to challenge the lack of verification.

Before filing suit under the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (applying remedies and procedures of Title VII to ADA); Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that exhaustion requires the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the EEOC). An EEOC charge must be verified, meaning that it must be "sworn to or affirmed . . . or supported by an unsworn declaration in writing under penalty of perjury." 29 C.F.R. § 1601.3(a). The verification requirement is mandatory. See Vason v. City of Montgomery, 240 F.3d 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2001).

Although the applicable  [**3] regulations allow charges of discrimination to be filed on behalf of a person, see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(a), the regulations do not dispense with the requirement that a plaintiff verify the facts supporting a claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.9. While an attorney may file an EEOC charge on behalf of a client, the attorney's signature alone will not constitute verification if the attorney does not personally swear to the truth of the facts stated in the charge and does not have personal knowledge of those facts. ² 

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.