In its relaxed approach to formalities, the 7-to-2 decision marked a decided change in tone for the Roberts court compared with one of the signature decisions of the previous term. In the earlier case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, the court ruled by a vote of 5 to 4 that employees complaining about discrimination in pay forfeited their right to sue if they did not file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of a manager’s discriminatory pay decision.
On Wednesday, by contrast, the new majority stressed the need for a “permissive standard” that would not shut the door on workers who were not represented by lawyers and who could be expected to make a layman’s mistakes.
“The system must be accessible to individuals who have no detailed knowledge of the relevant statutory mechanisms and agency processes,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that it was “consistent with the purposes” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to allow the initial complaint to be submitted on a form that was “easy to complete,” or even as “an informal document, easy to draft.”
The dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas — a former chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — and Antonin Scalia. Justice Thomas, referring to the age discrimination law by its initials, complained that the majority had adopted a standard “so malleable that it effectively absolves the E.E.O.C. of its obligation to administer the A.D.E.A. according to discernible standards.” The court had employed “utterly vague criteria,” Justice Thomas said. Justice Scalia signed the dissent.
Of the seven members in the majority, three — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., along with Justice Kennedy — had voted in the majority in the Ledbetter case. The dissenters from that decision — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer — objected that the court was ignoring the realities of the workplace.
In both cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took a position that favored the employees. But in the Ledbetter case, the Bush administration repudiated the commission’s policy and entered the case on the employer’s behalf. By contrast, in the case decided Wednesday, Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322, the administration supported the commission and argued on behalf of 14 Federal Express couriers who complained that newly adopted policies were aimed at forcing out older workers.
Under the age discrimination law, employees must first file a discrimination charge with the E.E.O.C., and then wait 60 days before filing a lawsuit, in order to give the commission time to try to resolve the matter with the employer.
In this instance, the employees filed the wrong document with the commission, an “intake questionnaire” rather than a formal “charge” document. They accompanied that document with an affidavit that described the problem and asked the commission to “please force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan.”
After the employees filed suit, the Federal District Court in Manhattan found the document insufficient and granted the employer’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated the suit, in a decision that the ruling on Wednesday affirmed. The suit, filed in 2002, has yet to go to trial.