Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp.: 11th Circuit Clarifies What Constitutes a "Charge" in Employment Discrimination Cases

IMMIGRANTS & EMPLOYMENT

Immigrants' Employment Rights and Remedies

WILKERSON V. GRINNELL CORP.: 11TH CIRCUIT CLARIFIES WHAT CONSTITUTES A "CHARGE" IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 15, No. 7, Nov. 16, 2001

In a case involving allegations of racial and gender discrimination in the workplace, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that filling out an intake questionnaire can constitute filing a formal charge of discrimination if the individual who fills out the questionnaire manifests an intent to activate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) administrative process.

The petitioner in this case is an African-American woman who alleged her employer fired her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Shortly after being fired, she contacted the EEOC, and the agency sent her an intake questionnaire. She immediately filled it out, providing detailed information about the employer and the discriminatory incidents, and including a list of witnesses. She signed the questionnaire under penalty of perjury and immediately returned it to the EEOC. One month later, she contacted the EEOC and was told that, due to a backlog, the agency had not yet reviewed her intake form. Ten months later, she contacted the EEOC again and was told that the agency had contacted her to request more information; she, however, had never actually received any additional communication from the EEOC.

The EEOC told her it would proceed with her complaint using the information she had already provided on the intake questionnaire, and it did proceed to notify the employer of her allegations. However, the EEOC eventually dismissed her claim, stating that it was filed after the filing period provided for by the statute of limitations had expired. She contacted the EEOC again to explain that she had filed the intake questionnaire shortly after being fired, well within the statute of limitations. The EEOC then retracted its dismissal of her claim and issued her a Notice of Right to Sue, which allowed her to file a complaint against her former employer in federal court. When she sued, however, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted the employer summary judgment, holding that the petitioner had failed to file a timely verified charge with the EEOC.

The court of appeals vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case after it found that the intake questionnaire was verified and did meet the regulatory requirements of a charge.

To sue an employer under Title VII, individuals must first exhaust their administrative remedies, which means they must first file a claim with the EEOC, which is the federal agency that enforces the law. According to the statute, the first step a complainant must take is to file a charge with the EEOC. The regulations specify that the charge must be in writing, signed, and verified. In addition, the charge should contain certain information, such as the contact information for the parties, a clear statement of the facts that allegedly constitute employment discrimination, the number of persons employed by the defendant employer (if known), and a statement disclosing whether a state or local agency has begun an investigation. See 29 CFR § 1601.12(a). However, the court found that the requirements for a charge are actually very minimal given that, even if a charge does not contain the suggested information, the EEOC will deem a charge "minimally sufficient" when it receives a statement that identifies the parties and generally describes the actions complained of. Furthermore, a charge may be amended.

In its decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Third, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in holding that an intake questionnaire meets the requirements of a charge if the notice to the EEOC leads a reasonable person to believe that the complainant has "manifested an intent" to activate Title VII's machinery. (The Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have also considered whether an intake questionnaire meets the requirements for a charge but have taken different approaches in deciding that it can satisfy this Title VII requirement.) The "manifest intent" approach requires the complainant to clearly indicate that he or she wishes the EEOC to begin an investigation of his or her allegations. Once a sufficient charge is filed, the EEOC must notify the employer within ten days that a charge has been filed against it. The "manifest intent" approach also ensures that once the complainant's intent is clear, the EEOC's inaction cannot invalidate the complainant's claim. The court noted that it is the EEOC's obligation to serve the party against whom the charge has been filed (i.e., to serve the charge on the party) and that any deficiency in the EEOC's performance should not adversely affect a plaintiff's right to sue.

Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., No. 00-13915, 2001 US App. LEXIS 22604 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2001).