Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Under Federal Anti-discrimination Laws After Holowecki
| Publication year | 2010 |
| Pages | 25 |
| Citation | Vol. 39 No. 4 Pg. 25 |
2010, April, Pg. 25. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws After Holowecki
April 2010
Vol. 39, No. 4 [Page 25]
Labor and Employment Law articles are sponsored by the CBA Labor and Employment Law Section to present current issues and topics of interest to attorneys, judges, and legal and judicial administrators on all aspects of labor and employment law in Colorado.
Coordinating Editor
John M. Husband, Denver, of Holland and Hart LLP - (303) 295-8228, jhusband@hollandhart.com
About the Author
Gillian Dale is an Associate with the law firm of Hall and Evans, LLC - daleg@hallevans.com. The author thanks William J. Kelly for his insight and advice in preparing this article.
In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the definition of a "charge" for purposes of exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In response to that decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a new Intake Questionnaire. The result of these developments is that charging parties will find it easier to argue that they have exhausted their administrative remedies even if they have not filed a formal Charge of Discrimination.
In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki,(fn1) the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits and ruled for the first time that a charging party can exhaust his or her administrative remedies under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) without filing a formal Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Holowecki's approach, which has been applied to other statutes by the Tenth Circuit, provides an expanded opportunity for a plaintiff to argue that he or she has exhausted his or her administrative remedies solely by completing intake documents with the EEOC.
This article discusses the case law applying Holowecki and describes the Intake Questionnaire recently issued by the EEOC in response to that decision. If properly completed, the Intake Questionnaire provides charging parties with a simpler argument that they have exhausted their administrative remedies through the EEOC, even if they never file a formal Charge of Discrimination.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The EEOC is charged with the enforcement of several federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII,(fn2) the ADEA,(fn3) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).(fn4) Under each statute, a claimant is required to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit by filing a charge with the EEOC.(fn5) However, the relevant statutes do not specifically define what constitutes a "charge" for purposes of exhaustion. Title VII states only that a charge shall be in writing under oath or affirmation, and shall contain the information required by the EEOC.(fn6) The ADA incorporates Title VII's enforcement provisions and, therefore, uses the same description of a charge.(fn7) The ADEA includes no description of the requirements for a charge.
The EEOC's implementing regulations for the three statutes are practically the same, stating that a charge of discrimination "should" contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person making the charge and the person being charged; a description of the alleged discrimination; the approximate number of employees of the employer; and a statement as to whether proceedings have been brought before a state agency.(fn8) However, the regulations also state that, notwithstanding these specific provisions, a charge is sufficient if it is in writing, identifies the prospective respondent, and describes generally the complained-of acts.(fn9)
The EEOC uses a formal document entitled a "Charge of Discrimination," which unquestionably meets the standards for filing a charge under these statutes. However, before filing a formal charge, a claimant typically will complete intake documents, such as an "Intake Questionnaire" or a "Charge Questionnaire," with a stated purpose of gathering information to determine the agency's jurisdiction and facilitate the completion of a charge. In some instances, a claimant will complete the Intake Questionnaire but not proceed to file a formal Charge of Discrimination, or may include information in the Intake Questionnaire that is not included in the Charge of Discrimination.
The question then arises as to whether the claimant has properly exhausted his or her administrative remedies with respect to claims not found in a formal Charge of Discrimination. Prior to Holowecki, the courts took varying approaches to determine whether the previously filed intake documents alone could satisfy the requirement of filing a charge.
The Tenth Circuit's Pre-Holowecki Approach
In Jones v. U.P.S., Inc.,(fn10) the Tenth Circuit considered whether a plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies under Title VII despite his failure to file a formal Charge of Discrimination. The Tenth Circuit found that the EEOC Intake Questionnaire submitted by the plaintiff satisfied the requirement for filing a charge, in light of the following facts: (1) the questionnaire satisfied the minimum requirements for a charge found in the EEOC regulations; (2) the circumstances indicated that the plaintiff intended for the questionnaire to serve as a charge and to start the administrative process; and (3) the EEOC treated the questionnaire as a charge.(fn11) Of note, the questionnaire in Jones contained an express statement that, if no other written statements were filed, the EEOC would treat it as a charge.(fn12)
The Holowecki Decision
In Holowecki, the plaintiff brought a claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial