News & Information

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW — 02/05/09

Completed EEOC Charge Questionnaire sufficient to exhaust Title VII remedies

A Title VII plaintiff’s completed “Charge Questionnaire” constituted the filing of a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies, a federal district court for the District of Columbia has ruled. The plaintiff, an African-American woman, was an Amtrak employee who had been part of a race discrimination class action lawsuit against Amtrak that was resolved through a consent decree. The employee’s direct supervisor was named in that class action as an Amtrak official who engaged in race discrimination against African-American employees. In her individual lawsuit, the employee alleged that she had been denied training and other benefits due to race discrimination and retaliation for her participation in the earlier class action. Amtrak moved to dismiss the employee’s claim for lack of subject matter because the employee failed to file a timely charge with the EEOC. The employee conceded that her formal “Charge of Discrimination” (EEOC Form 5) was not timely filed, but argued that she timely filed a “Charge Questionnaire” (EEOC Form 283). (Beckham v National RR Passenger Corp, DDC, 91 EPD ¶43,433)

In Federal Express Corp v Holowecki (90 EPD ¶43,106), the US Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff’s timely filed “Intake Questionnaire” and accompanying verified affidavit combined constituted an EEOC charge sufficient to exhaust administrative remedies under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Intake Questionnaire at issue in Holowecki was the predecessor to the Charge Questionnaire filed by the worker in this case. Due to “the similarities between the statutory schemes of the ADEA and Title VII concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies,” the court joined other courts in finding that Holowecki applied to Title VII claims.

In the current case, the court found that the Charge Questionnaire alone, without an affidavit like the one filed along with the Intake Questionnaire in Holowecki, was sufficient to meet the exhaustion requirement. The court noted material, and legally significant, differences between the two forms. In contrast to a completed Intake Questionnaire, which required the EEOC to infer from the allegations themselves that agency action was requested and required, a completed Charge Questionnaire is intended to enable the agency “to act” without more. “Moreover, where no timely charge is subsequently filed, a completed Charge Questionnaire will — and in this case did — activate the agency’s machinery and remedial processes irrespective of whether agency action had been directly requested,” the court explained.

For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.

Visit our News Library to read more news stories.