Jump to content

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added info re Thomas having led the EEOC
added EEOC's statement
Line 24: Line 24:


== Decision ==
== Decision ==
In a 7–2 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the plaintiff met the procedural requirements. The Court accepted the EEOC’s position that “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.”<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Brief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/eeoc/litigation/briefs/facilitysource.html |website=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/900005504474/ |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=National Law Journal |language=en}}</ref> The Court then decided that the documents filed in this case met these requirements.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=ACLU Summary of the 2007 Supreme Court Term |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/document/2007_term_summary.pdf&attachment_id=0&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=www.aclu.org}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2008-03-11 |title=Another Win for Workers from the Supreme Court |url=https://www.workplacefairness.org/2008/03/10/another-win-for-workers-from-the-supreme-court/ |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=Workplace Fairness |language=en-US}}</ref> Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented.<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Mark |date=February 27, 2008 |title=Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination |url=https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/business/2008/02/28/supreme-court-says-fedex-employees/52499683007/ |access-date=2024-01-18 |website=New Bedford Standard-Times |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarence Thomas |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/history/clarence-thomas |access-date=2024-01-18 |website=US EEOC |language=en}}</ref>
In a 7–2 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the plaintiff met the procedural requirements. The Court accepted the EEOC’s position that “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.”<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Brief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/eeoc/litigation/briefs/facilitysource.html |website=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/900005504474/ |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=National Law Journal |language=en}}</ref> The Court then decided that the documents filed in this case met these requirements.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=ACLU Summary of the 2007 Supreme Court Term |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/document/2007_term_summary.pdf&attachment_id=0&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=www.aclu.org}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2008-03-11 |title=Another Win for Workers from the Supreme Court |url=https://www.workplacefairness.org/2008/03/10/another-win-for-workers-from-the-supreme-court/ |access-date=2023-09-08 |website=Workplace Fairness |language=en-US}}</ref> Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented.<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Mark |date=February 27, 2008 |title=Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination |url=https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/business/2008/02/28/supreme-court-says-fedex-employees/52499683007/ |access-date=2024-01-18 |website=New Bedford Standard-Times |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarence Thomas |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/history/clarence-thomas |access-date=2024-01-18 |website=US EEOC |language=en}}</ref>

== 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."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hofmann |first=Mark A. |date=March 2, 2008 |title=Supreme Court ruling lowers bar for ADEA lawsuits {{!}} Business Insurance |url=https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20080302/STORY/100024237?template=printart |access-date=2024-01-19 |website=www.businessinsurance.com}}</ref><ref name=":3" />


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 00:18, 19 January 2024

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
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)
ArgumentOral argument
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]

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. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the documents did not constitute a charge. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.[2][5][6]

Decision

In a 7–2 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the plaintiff met the procedural requirements. The Court accepted the EEOC’s position that “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][7][8] The Court then decided that the documents filed in this case met these requirements.[2][5][9][4] 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.[10][11]

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."[12][10]

See also

References

  1. ^ Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008)
  2. ^ a b c d "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. ^ a b "Another Win for Workers from the Supreme Court". Workplace Fairness. March 11, 2008. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  5. ^ a b c "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. ^ "Brief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  8. ^ "Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination". National Law Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  9. ^ "ACLU Summary of the 2007 Supreme Court Term". www.aclu.org. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  10. ^ a b Sherman, Mark (February 27, 2008). "Supreme Court says FedEx employees can sue over age discrimination". New Bedford Standard-Times. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  11. ^ "Clarence Thomas". US EEOC. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  12. ^ Hofmann, Mark A. (March 2, 2008). "Supreme Court ruling lowers bar for ADEA lawsuits | Business Insurance". www.businessinsurance.com. Retrieved January 19, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Express_Corp._v._Holowecki&oldid=1196965790"