Examining the Shutdown's Impact on the EEOC and Charges of Discrimination
Throughout the shutdown, there were numerous news stories concerning the deadlines by which federal courts were expecting to run out of money. As a result, employment litigators and other federal court practitioners questioned whether the shutdown would interfere with their clients' filing deadlines and how it might affect their practices, generally.
February 07, 2019 at 02:41 PM
5 minute read
By Stephen A. Antonelli
By the time you are reading this, the federal government will have re-opened, at least temporarily. On Friday, Jan. 25, the president and Congress agreed to end a 35-day partial shutdown of the U.S. government—the longest in history—by passing a continuing resolution that will fund the government through Feb. 15.
Throughout the shutdown, there were numerous news stories concerning the deadlines by which federal courts were expecting to run out of money. As a result, employment litigators and other federal court practitioners questioned whether the shutdown would interfere with their clients' filing deadlines and how it might affect their practices, generally. Early on, courts were expected to run out of operating funds by Jan. 18. That deadline was later extended to Jan. 25 and then to Feb. 1. Luckily, courts were able to maintain mostly normal operations until the shutdown ended.
Likewise, the shutdown did not affect the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The same cannot be said for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which closed on Dec. 22 and did not reopen until Jan. 28. For the 37 days in between those dates, the EEOC did not process new charges of discrimination and it did not investigate pending charges.
According to the EEOC's website, during the shutdown, most services were unavailable. Its toll-free phone numbers were unstaffed, its digital portals were inaccessible, and intake interviews were cancelled (unless a charging party was in danger of missing a filing deadline). In other words, unless a deadline was nearing, if parties to a charge of discrimination had questions about the status of a charge, those questions were likely unanswered during the shutdown.
Through a notice posted on its website, the EEOC provided information for potential charging parties as well as to those who had already filed and/or responded to a charge. Once posted, the website was not updated until the shutdown had ended and appropriations were enacted. A summary of the information provided by the EEOC is below.
|Information Provided for Potential Charging Parties
The EEOC reminded potential charging parties that, generally, they must file charges of discrimination within 300 days of the incident of alleged discrimination. This deadline is only 180 days in states such as North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Arkansas, where there is no state fair employment practice agency. The EEOC clearly noted that the shutdown did not serve to extend these filing deadlines. As a result, it advised charging parties who were within 30 days of an expiring statute of limitations (or those who were unsure of a filing deadline) to immediately begin the process of filing a charge by downloading and submitting a pre-charge inquiry. The EEOC accepted pre-charge inquiries throughout the shutdown, but only via hand delivery, mail or fax because its online portal was not available.
The EEOC also advised potential charging parties who were within 30 days of a filing deadline of how to file a timely charge. Charges must be dated and signed in writing (not typed). They must also include the following:
- The charging party's name, address and phone number;
- The name, address and phone number of the respondent;
- The adverse action the charging party believes was discriminatory, when it occurred and the reason it was taken; and
- A request for the EEOC to take remedial action.
Information Provided for Parties to a Charge or Litigation
Despite the shutdown, employers were expected to comply with all deadlines for position statements and requests for i nformation. Employers who typically seek extensions of these deadlines were not likely to have their requests granted during the shutdown as the EEOC did not have adequate staff to consider such requests.
The EEOC advised charging parties who have received notice of their right to sue, that the time limits for commencing litigation in federal court were not suspended as a result of the shutdown. As a result, it advised that charging parties who fail to file suit within the applicable time period set forth in the dismissal notice will lose the right to do so.
All mediations—whether for private or public sector matters—that were scheduled to occur during the shutdown, were cancelled until further notice. Now that the EEOC has resumed operations, mediators will contact the parties in each matter to reschedule the mediation.
During the shutdown, the EEOC continued to accept but did not process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Now that the EEOC has resumed operations, it will begin to respond to messages left for the FOIA Requester Service Center and the FOIA Public Liaison in the order in which the messages were received. Depending on the volume of messages received, it may take the EEOC as long as 10 business days (until Feb. 8) to respond to your message.
Finally, all litigation involving the EEOC as a party was suspended unless a continuance had not been granted by the court.
In short, the EEOC resumed operations—at least temporarily—on Jan. 28. Its employees will have more than a month's worth of “catch-up” work to do in addition to their normal responsibilities. Employees, employers and their respective counsel should expect significant delays as the EEOC processes and investigates a presumed backlog of charges of discrimination.
Stephen A. Antonelli is a shareholder in the employment and labor and litigation groups of the aw firm Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir. His practice includes representing employers in all phases of labor and employment law, as well as matters of general litigation. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250