Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki - 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008)

Rule:

Documents filed by an employee with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be construed, to the extent consistent with permissible rules of interpretation, to protect the employee's rights and statutory remedies. 

Facts:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) requires that "no civil action…be commenced…until 60 days after a charge alleging unlawful discrimination has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" (EEOC), 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), but does not define the term "charge." After petitioner delivery service (FedEx) initiated programs tying its couriers' compensation and continued employment to certain performance benchmarks, respondent Patricia Kennedy, a FedEx courier over age 40, filed with the EEOC, in December 2001, a Form 283 "Intake Questionnaire" and a detailed affidavit supporting her contention that the FedEx programs discriminated against older couriers in violation of the ADEA. In April 2002, Kennedy and others filed this ADEA suit claiming, inter alia, that the programs were veiled attempts to force out, harass, and discriminate against older couriers. FedEx moved to dismiss Kennedy’s action, contending she had not filed the "charge" required by § 626(d). Kennedy countered that her Form 283 and affidavit constituted a valid charge, but the District Court disagreed and granted FedEx's motion. The Second Circuit reversed.

Issue:

Were the documents Kennedy filed in December 2001 a charge?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court deferred to the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the regulations did not identify all necessary components of a charge. It followed that a document meeting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1626.6 was not a charge in every instance. The language in 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.6 and 1626.8 could not be viewed in isolation from the rest of the regulations. The structure of the regulations was less than clear, but the relevant provisions were grouped under the title, "Procedures--Age Discrimination in Employment Act." A permissible reading was the regulations identified the procedures for filing a charge but did not state the full contents a charge document must contain. The court accepted the EEOC's position that in addition to the information required by the regulations, i.e., an allegation and the name of the charged party, if a filing was to be deemed a charge it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee. The employee's filing met this test. The result was consistent with the design and purpose of the ADEA.