Federal Express Corp. V. Holowecki Et Al

The Supreme Court of The United States has agreed to hear the case of Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki ET AL. This case is about FedEx courier over the age of 40 who filed an EEOC “Intake Questionnaire” Form 283 and a detailed affidavit supporting her claim that FedEx had programs in place that discriminated against older couriers that violated the ADEA. This was filed in December of 2001 and by April 2002 other had filed suit along with Holowecki saying that FedEx has programs in place that were aimed at removing older couriers from the workforce.

“FedEx moved to dismiss the respondent’s action, contending she had not filed the “charge” required by Ð'§626(d). Respondent countered that her Form 283 and affidavit constituted a valid charge, but the District Court disagreed and granted FedEx’s motion. The Second Circuit reversed.” (Page 1 of Writ Certiorari)

The issue at had in this case that the Supreme court will handle is that whether or not the respondent filed her EEOC charge at least 60 days before she filed suit. Specifically it is whether or not Form 283 “Intake Questionnaire” is considered a charge against an intatie. There is not a true definition of what the EEOC considers a charge. In Title 29 CFR Ð'§ 1626.3 give a definition as well as Section 1626.8(a). Section 1626.8(b) qualifies it by saying a charge is “sufficient if it meets the requirements of Ð'§1626.6. This really muddies the waters because behind all of those number is says that all you have to have is a “charge shall mean a statement filed with the [EEOC] which alleges that the named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in acts in violation of the Act.” (Page 2 Writ of Certiorara)

This case could have a very large impact on employment and discrimination, but mainly on what is consider a formal charge for the EEOC. This is very important to all employees and employers do to the fact that it could completely change the way that an EEOC complant is filed.

This case if ruled for the respondent it could actually