Response to EEOC Charge of Discrimination

_________, ____

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Re: EEOC Case No.



Our File No:

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter constitutes the formal response of Company, Inc. (“Company”) to the allegations made by Complainant (“Complainant”) in the Charge of Discrimination attached as Exhibit 1. The Company strongly disputes the allegations of sexual harassment brought by Complainant. The Company’s policies prohibit all forms of sexual harassment and discrimination.

The personnel files requested by the Commission, along with additional documentation supporting this response, are referenced as exhibits and copies provided along with this response.



The Company is located at ___________________________________. Complainant’s manager is Mr. Manager (“Manager”). One of Manager’s assistant managers, Ms. Assistant (“Assistant”), also has personal information concerning this matter.



In support of this response, the Company has obtained sworn statements from:

  1. The sworn statements are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3.



    Complainant’s Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) alleges unwanted sexual conduct, hostile work environment, and gender discrimination by a co-worker. The Company provides this Response based on the limited allegations brought by Complainant.



    The legal elements of Complainant’s apparent claims are as follows:

    A. Co-Worker Sexual Harassment

    The elements of a co-worker sexual harassment claim are:

  2. Complainant belongs to a protected class;

  3. Complainant was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment;

  4. The harassment was based on sex;

  5. The harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege under employment; and,

  6. The Company either knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper and remedial action.

    [ OPTION 1 : The Company’s Affirmative Defense]

    The Company is entitled to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense for which the elements are as follows:

    1. The Company exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior; and,

    2. Employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by The Company or to avoid harm otherwise.

    Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth , 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998). The Company can establish it took prompt remedial action if it:

    1. Took the allegations seriously;

    2. Conducted a prompt and thorough investigation; and

    3. Immediately implemented remedial and disciplinary measures based on the results of the investigations.

    Waymire v. Harris County , 86 F.3d 424, 428 (5th Cir. 1996).

    [ OPTION 2 : Retaliation]

    Complainant’s retaliation claim requires the following:

    1. Complainant engaged in activity protected by Title VII; and

    2. Complainant suffered an adverse employment action as a result of the activity.

    If Complainant is able to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, The Company must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The burden then shifts back to Complainant to establish if the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason is a pretext for the retaliation.

    [ OPTION 3 : Limitations]

    Finally, The Company may only be held responsible for acts allegedly occurring 300 days before the complaint was filed. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) .



    Complainant cannot establish a claim against Company for the following reasons:

  7. Complainant was not the subject of harassment based on sex;

  8. Any alleged harassment did not affect a term, condition, or privilege under employment; and,

  9. Company immediately responded to Complainant’s allegations of harassment and took proper remedial action.

  10. [OPTION: Complainant stopped working for The Company over 300 days prior to the time complaint was filed. Therefore, any allegations against The Company are time-barred.]

  11. [OPTION: No evidence exists that The Company knew or should have known of the alleged harassing conduct.]

  12. [OPTION: No causal connection exists between Complainant’s termination and any allegation of discrimination. Therefore, The Company is entitled...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT