Before filing a discrimination lawsuit under most federal employment laws — including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — an individual is normally required to file a formal, written charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or with an equivalent state fair employment practices agency outlining the allegations.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Express Corporation v. Holowecki that an informal intake questionnaire can be construed to constitute a formal charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC if it reasonably can be read as a request for the agency to investigate and take action to remedy an alleged discriminatory employment practice.
A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit underscores the High Court’s admonition in Holowecki that in order to be valid, however, a charge must request some form of relief, such as back pay or reinstatement. In Carlson v. Christian Brothers Services, No. 15-3807 (7th Cir. Oct. 27, 2016), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a federal trial court’s dismissal of a lawsuit on timeliness grounds, concluding that the initial “complainant information sheet” filed by the plaintiff with the appropriate state agency did not request relief and therefore did not constitute a valid charge.
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling is a helpful reminder of some of the legitimate “non-merits” defenses that are available to employers when they face discrimination charges, including a challenge to the validity of the charge itself and a challenge to the timeliness of the filing.
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Carlson v. Christian Brothers Services is available here.
Members of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) can read more here.