Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki

Last updated

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 6, 2007
Decided February 27, 2008
Full case nameFederal Express Corporation, Petitioner v. Paul Holowecki et al.
Docket no. 06-1322
Citations552 U.S. 389 ( more )
128 S. Ct. 1147
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorHolowecki v. Federal Exp. Corp., 440 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2006)
Questions presented
Do the questionnaire and affidavit submitted to the EEOC qualify as a charge of discrimination under the ADEA?
Holding
The documents filed did qualify as a charge, as they could be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take action.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). [1] [2]

Contents

Background

14 employees filed suit against Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. Under the ADEA, a person may file a civil action 60 days after filing a “charge” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). [3] This process would satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies, which aims to provide the employer with notice of the claim and ensure that the EEOC has a chance to resolve the claim before a civil action is filed. [4] One of the plaintiffs in this case, Kennedy, filed with the EEOC a Form 283 “Intake Questionnaire” and a signed affidavit more than 60 days before filing suit. The EEOC, however, did not take the usual steps after a filing to process it as a charge. FedEx argued that Kennedy failed to file a charge with the EEOC as required by the ADEA.

Procedural history

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit, holding that the documents did not constitute a charge, and that Kennedy did not receive a notice of right to sue from the EEOC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the questionnaire satisfied the charge requirement even though the EEOC did not take action. [2] [5] [6] [7] The Court of Appeals interpreted the term "charge" to include documents filed by Kennedy, since a definition was not provided by the ADEA. The Court also noted that this interpretation would fulfill the ADEA's requirement of providing the EEOC with notice. [8] [9]

Decision

In a 7–2 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the plaintiff met the procedural requirements. The Court accepted the EEOC’s test for determining whether a filing constituted a charge as set forth in its amicus curiae brief as well as internal directives, and decided: “In addition to the information required by the regulations, i.e., an allegation and the name of the charged party, if a filing is 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.” [2] [10] [11] The Court then decided that the documents filed in this case met these requirements. [2] [5] [12] [4]

The Court noted that without the accompanying affidavit, the questionnaire filed by Kennedy alone would likely not constitute a charge. [8] The Court also stated that although this standard would allow a wide range of documents to qualify as charges, this result was consistent with the ADEA's setup where laypersons instead of lawyers are expected to initiate the administrative process. [2]

Furthermore, the Court noted that although the employer in this case was not notified of the complaint until a formal lawsuit was filed, "[t]he court that hears the merits of this litigation can attempt to remedy this deficiency by staying the proceedings to allow an opportunity for conciliation and settlement." The Court considered this result "unfortunate" but "unavoidable," and stated that the EEOC bears the responsibility to establish a more clear and consistent process in order to avoid future similar misunderstandings and consequences. [2] [13]

Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented. [5] Thomas stated that the majority's ruling would absolve the EEOC of its obligation to administer the law properly. Thomas led the EEOC as its eighth Chairman in the 1980s. [14] [15]

Response

In response to the decision, the EEOC stated, "as the Court noted, the EEOC has taken steps to ensure timely notification to respondents of receipt of intake questionnaires or other correspondence that constitute charges. We will continue to review our procedures as the Court has suggested to ensure that they are clear to the public and consistent with our statutes and regulations." [7] [14]

Impact

Because the opinion specified that the decision would only apply to the ADEA, the ruling would not be a precedent for cases brought under other legislation such as Title I of the ADA or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. [8]

Subsequent cases

Several later cases followed the decision in Holowecki. In Morrow v. Metro Transit in 2009, the plaintiff filed a questionnaire similar to the one in Holowecki. However, instead of including an affidavit, the plaintiff attached a paragraph with relevant facts. The court held in accordance with Holowecki that the questionnaire alone was not enough and including the paragraph, as opposed to an affidavit, was also not sufficient. [8] [16]

In Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America in 2013, the court followed Holowecki's opinion of a charge being a document that could be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take action, and decided that the questionnaire at issue satisfied this definition, since it included language that could be construed as requesting action. Specifically, the questionnaire referred to the employee as a complainant, and referred to the form itself as an “employment complaint being filed against the Respondent”. [8] [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</span> United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967</span> United States labor law

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is a United States labor law that forbids employment discrimination against anyone, at least 40 years of age, in the United States. In 1967, the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The ADEA prevents age discrimination and provides equal employment opportunity under the conditions that were not explicitly covered in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act also applies to the standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers, and requires that information concerning the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959, codified as Government Code §§12900 - 12996, is a California statute used to fight sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and housing, which was passed on September 18, 1959.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S. employers must not engage in workplace discrimination such as writing bad job references, or otherwise retaliating against former employees as a punishment for filing job discrimination complaints.

<i>Geary v. Visitation of Blessed Virgin Mary School</i>

Geary v. Visitation of Blessed Virgin Mary School, 7 F.3d 324, was a court case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which considered whether a religious school in Darby, Pennsylvania could be sued for age discrimination.

<i>DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School</i> American legal case

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 was a discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment before his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws and that if it were, this case against it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The School also argued that DeMarco had failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

In the United States, all states have passed laws that restrict age discrimination, and age discrimination is restricted under federal laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). However, it is worthy of note that age discrimination is still an issue in employment as of 2019.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court.

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Victoria Lipnic</span> American lawyer (born 1960)

Victoria Ann Lipnic is an American lawyer and public figure. She served in multiple senior United States government positions. She was Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), nominated to two terms by President Barack Obama, 2010 – 2020.) She served as Chair (Acting) of the EEOC under President Donald J. Trump from 2017 – 2019. Prior to her appointments to the EEOC, she was Assistant Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush. The United States Senate confirmed her unanimously to each of these positions.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

References

  1. ↑ Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008)". Justia Law. Retrieved September 7, 2023.
  3. ↑ "29 CFR § 1626.18 - Filing of private lawsuit". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 7, 2023.
  4. 1 2 "Another Win for Workers from the Supreme Court". Workplace Fairness. March 11, 2008. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 "Federal Express Corporation v. Holowecki". Oyez. Retrieved September 7, 2023.
  6. ↑ Anderson, Mark H. (November 8, 2007). "Supreme Court Frustrated By FedEx Age Complaint". Wall Street Journal. ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  7. 1 2 Hofmann, Mark A. (March 2, 2008). "Supreme Court ruling lowers bar for ADEA lawsuits | Business Insurance". www.businessinsurance.com. Retrieved January 19, 2024.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 "Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki < Southeast ADA Center". Southeast ADA Center. Retrieved January 20, 2024.
  9. ↑ "Holowecki v. Federal Exp. Corp., 440 F.3d 558 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  10. ↑ "Brief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  11. ↑ "Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination". National Law Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  12. ↑ "ACLU Summary of the 2007 Supreme Court Term". www.aclu.org. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  13. ↑ Bricker & Eckler LLP - Vladimir P. Belo (March 8, 2008). "Supreme Court adopts an expansive definition of what can be a "charge" of age discrimination". Lexology. Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  14. 1 2 Sherman, Mark (February 27, 2008). "Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination". New Bedford Standard-Times. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  15. ↑ "Clarence Thomas". US EEOC. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  16. ↑ Morrow v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, May 8, 2009, retrieved January 21, 2024
  17. ↑ Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America, March 22, 2013, retrieved January 21, 2024
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.