In re A.M. and M.M.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an intake questionnaire constituted a charge because of an attached affidavit that stated “[pjlease force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan so we can finish out our careers absent the unfairness and hostile work environment----”
• noting that the plaintiff “asked the agency to ‘[p]lease force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan’ . . .”
• suggesting that a case-by-case approach should be taken to determine whether an Intake Questionnaire is a charge
• deferring to EEOC’s reasonable interpretation of regulations, including whether a document constitutes a charge
• “Documents filed by an employee with the EEOC should be construed, to the extent consistent with permissible rules of interpretation, to protect the employee’s rights and statutory remedies.”
• “[T]he agency is entitled to ... deference when it adopts a reasonable interpretation of regulations it has put in force.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).