Comments on: Court rules on how to file an age bias claim http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jim Davidson http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14949 Jim Davidson Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:54:55 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14949 I filed an age discrimination charge with the Indiana EEOC six months ago, and to this time and date, nothing has been done; where do I go from here? I filed an age discrimination charge with the Indiana EEOC six months ago, and to this time and date, nothing has been done; where do I go from here?

]]> By: John Dereszewski http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14894 John Dereszewski Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:08:30 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14894 A reading of the opinion indicated that it was not Congressional intent as much as it was the application of deference to the EEOC under the doctrine of Chevron and related cases that guided the majority's opinion. While, in my view, a legislative intent argument would have made for a more convincing opinion, it probably would not have gained support from Roberts, Alito - or even Kennedy. So, you have to take what you get and be encouraged by the fact that, at least in this case, R & A did not fit into the stereotype. A reading of the opinion indicated that it was not Congressional intent as much as it was the application of deference to the EEOC under the doctrine of Chevron and related cases that guided the majority’s opinion. While, in my view, a legislative intent argument would have made for a more convincing opinion, it probably would not have gained support from Roberts, Alito – or even Kennedy. So, you have to take what you get and be encouraged by the fact that, at least in this case, R & A did not fit into the stereotype.

]]> By: Daniel Thomas http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14870 Daniel Thomas Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:50:19 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14870 Stephen. I haven't read the opinion but I'd imagine based upon what Lyle wrote that the majority is going to look at what the intention was. Thomas's response is very formalistic: if certain magic words are not uttered in the proscribed sequence, the spell fails. It's a stupid approach to the law, IMHO. After all, what's to stop the EEOC from having a pre-pre-charge form, an after the pre charge but before the real true charge form, an after the charge form but before we do any action form, and other assorted nonsense. What should get the ball rolling is what the person intended when he filed the compliant and adminstrative formulas be darned. Stephen. I haven’t read the opinion but I’d imagine based upon what Lyle wrote that the majority is going to look at what the intention was. Thomas’s response is very formalistic: if certain magic words are not uttered in the proscribed sequence, the spell fails. It’s a stupid approach to the law, IMHO. After all, what’s to stop the EEOC from having a pre-pre-charge form, an after the pre charge but before the real true charge form, an after the charge form but before we do any action form, and other assorted nonsense. What should get the ball rolling is what the person intended when he filed the compliant and adminstrative formulas be darned.

]]> By: Stephen Jaros http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14843 Stephen Jaros Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:15:32 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-rules-on-pleading-age-bias-case/#comment-14843 Justice Thomas's dissent states: "The filing at issue in this case did not state that it was a charge and did not include a charge form; to the contrary, it included a form that expressly stated it was for the purpose of “precharge” counseling. What is more, the EEOC did not assign it a charge number, notify the employer of the complainant’s1 allegations, or commence enforcement proceedings." Wow, i don't see how any could construe what was filed with the EEOC as a "charge". What was the majority thinking ... ? Justice Thomas’s dissent states:

“The filing at issue in this case did not state that it was a charge and did not include a charge form; to the contrary, it included a form that expressly stated it was for the purpose of “precharge” counseling. What is more, the EEOC did not assign it a charge number, notify the employer of the complainant’s1 allegations, or commence enforcement proceedings.”

Wow, i don’t see how any could construe what was filed with the EEOC as a “charge”. What was the majority thinking … ?

]]>