Filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Part IV

01/30/2012

0 Comments

 
Note: This focuses on Illinois employees working or applying for employment with private employers in Illinois.  Federal employees or applicants should see EEOC regulations applicable to federal employee complaints.

What are the Time Limits for Filing a Charge of Discrimination?

All laws enforced by EEOC, except the Equal Pay Act, require filing a charge with EEOC before a private lawsuit may be filed in court. There are strict time limits within which charges must be filed: a charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party's rights. However, this 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law.  Illinois has such anti-discrimination laws, therefore, for an employee working in Illinois, that employee has 300 days to file a charge.  Because it can take time to set up an appointment to file a charge, it is not usually a good idea to wait to the last minute to try to file a charge.
Add Comment
 

Filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Part III

01/26/2012

0 Comments

 
Note: This focuses on Illinois employees working or applying for employment with private employers in Illinois.  Federal employees or applicants should see EEOC regulations applicable to federal employee complaints.

What Information Must be Provided in the Charge of Discrimination?

There are several facts an employee must provide when filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  In particular, the employee (or complaining party) must provide his or her name, address, and telephone number.  The employee must also provide the name, address, and telephone number of the employer that is alleged to have discriminated against the employee, and number of employees the employer has, if known.  Finally, the employee must provide a short description of the event that caused the employee to believe that his or her rights were violated; and the date(s) of the alleged violation(s).

While the employee provides the information, the EEOC has intake coordinators who can gather the information from the employee during the interview (see Part II about setting up an appointment) and the coordinator can draft the charge for the employee.  Again, be sure that the information the intake coordinator writes in the charge is accurate.
Add Comment
 

Filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Part II

01/23/2012

0 Comments

 
Note: This focuses on Illinois employees working or applying for employment with private employers in Illinois.  Federal employees or applicants should see EEOC regulations applicable to federal employee complaints.

How is a Charge of Discrimination Filed?

Usually you call and set up an appointment to file the charge in person.  The number for the EEOC is (800) 669-4000.  For those of us in the Chicagoland area, our local district office is at 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60661.  See the EEOC's website for more information about the district office here: http://www.eeoc.gov/field/chicago/

When you set up your appointment, you may be asked to fill out an intake questionnaire and bring it with you to your appointment.   That form can be found here: http://www.eeoc.gov/form/upload/Uniform-Intake-Questionnaire.pdf.  That questionnaire may constitute a charge if it contains all the information required by EEOC regulations and constitutes a clear request for the agency to act.  

At the appointment, you will be asked various questions and the intake coordinator will create a charge for you.  Be sure to check the forms and make sure that all the information is correct.  Individuals who need an accommodation in order to file a charge (such as an interpreter) should inform the EEOC field office so appropriate arrangements can be made.
The next blog entry will address what sort of information the EEOC asks for when you file a charge.
Add Comment
 

Filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Part I

01/19/2012

0 Comments

 
Note: This focuses on Illinois employees working or applying for employment with private employers in Illinois.  Federal employees or applicants should see EEOC regulations applicable to federal employee complaints.

Addressing how to file a charge will be split into several parts: who can file a charge, how is a charge filed, what information must be provided in a charge, what are the time limits, and a note about other agencies.

Who Can File a Charge of Discrimination?

Any individual who works for an employer with fifteen or more employees who believes that his or her employment rights have been violated may file a charge of discrimination with EEOC. Also, an individual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the victim's identity.

There are times that a company splits into pieces to avoid reaching 15 employees.  In situations like this, the EEOC will combine the companies and still recognize that there are 15 employees.  Furthermore, there are situates where an individual can file a charge against an employer with fewer than 15 employees at other agencies (such as the Illinois Department of Human Rights), depending on the type of claim the employee wants to bring.

If you are having a hard time determining whether there are enough employees, you may want to speak to an attorney about your claim, how to file it and where.
Add Comment
 

Supreme Court Decides Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC

01/11/2012

0 Comments

 
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC et al.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court while Justice Thomas  filed a concurring opinion as did Justice Alito, which Justice Kagan joined.

The question before the Court was whether the ministerial exception to employment law litigation applies to an employee of a religious organization whose job duties include secular and religious activities.

The Court held that the 6th Cir. made three errors and that Perich was a minister for the purposes of the ministerial exception.  Those three errors were (1) not seeing relevance in the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister; (2) giving too much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed the same religious duties as Perich; and (3) placing too much emphasis on Perich's secular duties.  

The Court stated that “What matters in the present case is that Hosanna-Tabor believes that the religious function that respondent performed made it essential that she abide by the doctrine of internal dispute resolution; and the civil courts are in no position to second-guess that assessment. This conclusion rests not on respondent’s ordination status or her formal title, but rather on her functional status as the type of employee that a church must be free to appoint or dismiss in order to exercise the religious liberty that the First Amendment guarantees.”

Read the full case here:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

For our prior blog entry on this case read here.
Add Comment
 

Seventh Circuit Victory for Plaintiff

01/09/2012

0 Comments

 
Coleman v. Donahoe, No. 10-3694, January 6, 2012.

The Seventh Circuit found an employee provided sufficient evidence of similarly situated employees and held the test is a flexible one.

The Postal Service terminated plaintiff after 32 years of employment as a clerk, claiming that it was because she told her psychiatrist she was having thoughts of killing her supervisor, and it believed she posed a danger to fellow employees. Plaintiff is an African-American woman.  She claimed the Postal Service discriminated and retaliated  against her. To support her claims, she proved that two white male employees at the same facility had recently threatened another employee at knife-point, yet received only one-week suspensions from the same manager who fired her. The district court granted the Postal Service summary judgment, holding that the two men were not comparators because they had different direct supervisors. The Seventh Circuit reversed.

The Seventh Circuit examined two questions (1) how alike must comparators be to be similarly-situated? and (2) can evidenced that a similarly situated employee received better treatment satisfy plaintiff's burden to show that the employer's reason for its action was pretexutal?  

As to the first, the 7th Cir. stated that the similarly-situated inquiry is flexible, common-sense, and factual.  Here there were enough common features for a meaningful comparison. 

Further, the Court held that the evidence can show pretext.  That evidence, in fact, is "especially relevant" to show protect.  Therefore, a reasonable jury could infer, in light of all the circumstances, that an impermissible animus motivated the firing.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/EL0LECVZ.pdf
Add Comment
 

Antoinette Choate Named "Illinois Rising Star"

01/03/2012

0 Comments

 
Antoinette Choate has been named to the Illinois Rising Stars list as one of the top attorneys in Illinois for 2012.  No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to the list.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from various practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.  The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.
Picture
Add Comment