Paul Holowecki was employed by Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) when FedEx implemented two new performance programs that tie employee compensation and continued employment to certain performance measures. Holowecki, along with other FedEx employees over the age of 40, claimed that the programs unlawfully discriminated against older employees. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claimants must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and then wait a statutorily defined period of time before filing suit in federal court. However, the ADEA does not define what constitutes a charge. The EEOC, using its authority to implement procedures necessary to carry out its objectives, promulgated a rule that states a “charge shall mean a statement filed with the Commission by or on behalf of an aggrieved person which alleges that the named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in violation of the Act.” Before filing suit, Holowecki submitted an intake questionnaire with the EEOC and filed a six-page affidavit. FedEx claimed that the questionnaire and affidavit did not constitute a formal charge against the company because they were only one step in a formal complaint procedure. FedEx argued that the EEOC’s interpretation of the definition of “charge” was outside the agency’s statutory authority.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Who prevails and why?

2. Will the court defer to the EEOC’s interpretation?

3. What is the standard used by the courts in cases such as this one?