Supreme Court FrustratedBy FedEx Age Complaint
By MARK H. ANDERSONNovember 6, 2007 11:28 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed frustration with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's handling of an age discrimination claim against FedEx Corp., which is arguing a claim should be dismissed on technical grounds.
At oral arguments on the appeal, the justices repeatedly criticized the EEOC for making it confusing for employees to levy an age discrimination complaint against a company. In addition to criticism of the EEOC, the high court also appeared reluctant to support FedEx's arguments for a hard-line approach that results in dismissal of an employment complaint due to a mistake.
"My main concern in this case, however the decision comes out, is to do something that will require the EEOC to get its act in order because this is nonsense," Justice Antonin Scalia told the federal government's attorney.
At issue in the appeal is whether Patricia Kennedy, a female courier for Federal Express, lost the chance to sue over age discrimination because she filled out an intake questionnaire, thinking that was sufficient, and failed to file a formal charge with the EEOC before bringing her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Individuals bringing discrimination claims under federal law must first go to the EEOC before heading to court. Ms. Kennedy's suit alleges FedEx used courier delivery rates to weed out older employees.
The lawsuit, filed in 2002, was initially dismissed by a U.S. District Court because the formal complaint was filed after she joined the lawsuit against the shipping company. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York revived her case, ruling the intake questionnaire was sufficient to support the discrimination claim in court.
Several justices expressed sympathy for that outcome as they resisted the FedEx's attorney's plea for strict age discrimination claims rules.
"I just don't understand your leap from government incompetence to saying the plaintiff loses," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said to FedEx's legal counsel, Connie Lensing.
Ms. Lensing argued the age discrimination law requires the company get preliminary notice that a discrimination charge has been levied against it, giving companies time to settle the matter. In the Kennedy case, Ms. Lensing said that notice wasn't given because the appropriate forms weren't filled out on time.
The justices spent much of their questioning trying to understand how this mistake was made. Several of them, in addition to Justice Scalia, said they thought the EEOC's procedures were confusing. "I thought that this statute, as all the statutes the EEOC administers, are designed for claims that are put forth initially largely by unrepresented people," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Toby Heytens, an assistant in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, acknowledged the EEOC's procedures had been cumbersome but said improvements have been made. "The agency has taken a number of concrete steps.. to deal with what in reality is a very serious problem," Mr. Heytens said.
The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 06-1322. A decision is expected by early 2008.
Court Turns Down Former Illinois Governor's Plea
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan lost his final bid Tuesday to delay his prison term when Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens turned down his request to remain free on bail. Mr. Ryan is due to report to the federal correctional center at Oxford, Wis., on Wednesday to start serving his 6 1/2-year racketeering and fraud sentence.
Mr. Ryan and co-defendant Larry Warner, who also was turned down, have remained free on bond since their April 2006 convictions. The two men asked Justice Stevens to grant them bail at least until the nation's high court decides whether to hear their appeal.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in a 2-1 split decision. Messrs. Ryan and Warner then asked the appeals court to reconsider and were turned down by a 6-3 vote. Judge Michael S. Kanne, who sat on the three-judge panel, dissented and said the trial had been "riddled with errors."
Mr. Ryan was convicted of steering big-money state contracts to Mr. Warner and other friends, using state money and state workers to run his campaigns and killing an investigation of bribes paid in exchange for truck driver's licenses. Mr. Ryan's claim that he didn't receive a fair trial is primarily based on chaotic jury deliberations. Two jurors were dismissed after it was found they had omitted mention of their police records on a questionnaire.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario