Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
Headline: Court affirms that EEOC intake questionnaires can count as an ADEA charge if they reasonably request agency action, making it easier for some older workers to trigger the 60‑day pre‑suit waiting period.
Holding:
- Makes some EEOC intake forms able to start the ADEA 60‑day waiting period before suing.
- Pressures the EEOC to clarify and revise intake forms and procedures to avoid confusion.
- Employers may be notified later than expected when intake filings are treated as charges.
Summary
Background
A group of FedEx couriers over age 40 sued, claiming company programs pushed older workers out. One courier filed an EEOC Form 283 intake questionnaire in December 2001 and attached a six‑page affidavit. A district court said those documents were not a formal charge and dismissed her suit; the court of appeals reversed and the high court reviewed whether the December filing counted as a charge under the ADEA.
Reasoning
The central question was what counts as a “charge” that starts the ADEA’s 60‑day waiting period. The Court accepted the EEOC’s long‑standing view that, beyond naming the employer and alleging discrimination, a filing must be reasonably read as a request that the agency take action to vindicate the worker’s rights. The Court gave deference to the agency’s interpretation (under Auer/Skidmore principles) and applied an objective “request‑to‑act” test. Because the intake form plus the attached affidavit expressly asked the EEOC to “force” FedEx to stop discriminating and the complainant consented to identity disclosure, the filing reasonably requested agency action and therefore qualified as a charge.
Real world impact
The ruling means some intake questionnaires and supporting statements will start the ADEA pre‑suit clock and require the EEOC to begin notice and conciliation duties. That outcome pushes the EEOC to clarify forms and procedures so people know when a filing will trigger enforcement steps. The decision decides when the procedural clock starts, not whether the employer discriminated on the merits.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent argued the ordinary meaning of “charge” requires a formal accusation that clearly initiates enforcement, warning that the Court’s flexible test gives the EEOC too much post hoc power and creates uncertainty for employers and complainants.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?