Edelman, Leonard v. Lynchburg College (03/19/2002)

Questions presented: Is the federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. @ 1601.12(b), which provides that a Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "charge (of discrimination) may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including the failure to verify the charge," invalid because it conflicts with the statutory requirement that a verified charge be filed within the applicable limitations period?

BY CASEY JONES, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Leonard Edelman is a white Polish-Jewish biology professor who taught at Lynchburg College in Virginia.

On June 6, 1997, he was denied tenure at the small liberal arts school that has about 100 faculty members and fewer than 2,000 undergraduate students.

On Nov. 14, 1997 160 days after his tenure denial he sent a letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he had been denied tenure because he was male. He claimed that Jacqueline Asbury, dean of Lynchburg College, opposed his tenure because she wanted more tenured women on the colleges faculty. He also alleged that Asbury ignored strong support from his department chairman and other faculty members. Edelmans letter stated that he had been subject to "gender-based employment discrimination, exacerbated by discrimination on the basis of [his] familys national origin and religion."

The end of the letter stated: "I hereby file a charge of employment discrimination against Lynchburg College (Dean Jacqueline Asbury, President Charles Warren and the Board of Trustees) and I call upon the EEOC to investigate this case[.]"

The EEOC received Edelmans letter on Nov. 18. Eight days later, Eric Schnapper, Edelman's attorney, sent another letter to the EEOC requesting a personal interview with an EEOC investigator. The EEOC responded with a letter to Edelman requesting additional information in order to fully investigate the case. They asked Edelman to confirm an interview with them as soon as possible "because a charge of discrimination must be filed within the time limits imposed by law."

Edelman had his interview with the EEOC on March 3, 1998, and five days later, the EEOC mailed a charge of discrimination for Edelman's verified signature. The signature was filed with the EEOC on April 15 313 days after the alleged discrimination date.

After Edelman received the EEOCs notice of his right to sue, on March 26, 1999, he followed through, and sued Lynchburg College in state court, alleging "wrongful termination, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

After Edelman amended his complaint to include a federal Title VII discrimination claim, the college moved the case to federal court, also moving to dismiss Edelman's Title VII claim, which states that charges of discrimination "shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires." Title VII has two distinct limitation periods within which that charge must be filed: Either 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice, or 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment. The college argued for dismissal because Edelman failed to file his discrimination charge within the 300-day period. (The EEOC did not receive the charge until April 15, 1998, which was 313 days after the allegations).

The federal judge agreed with the college, concluding that Edelman failed to timely file his charge of discrimination, dismissing the Title VII claim, and remanding Edelman's remaining claims to state court.

On Oct. 2, 2000, a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed. Calling the case one of first impression in the circuit, the appeals court held that EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. ? 1601.12(b) conflicts with the statutory requirements of Title VII, specifically 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-5(b) and 2000e-5(e)(1), to the extent that the regulation permits a charge of discrimination to be verified after the expiration of the applicable limitations period.

Edelman had argued that the EEOC regulation, stating that a charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC could be amended if "a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of" tolls the statute of limitations.

The 4th Circuit rejected the argument, concluding that Congress had "unambiguously spoken" on the issue by providing that if a discrimination claim is not in writing, under oath or affirmation, containing the information and in the form required by the Commission, it is not a charge.

The panel noted, however, that although its analysis is consistent with the thinking in the 8th Circuit, it conflicts with that of several other circuits; specifically with the 7th Circuit in Philbin v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 929 F.2d 321 (1991), the 10th Circuit in Peterson v. City of Wichita, 888 F.2d 1307 (1989), the 9th Circuit in Casavantes v. California State Univ., 732 F.2d 1441 (1984) and the 5th Circuit in Price v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 687 F.2d 74 (1982).

"We disagree with these decisions, in short, because we believe that they improperly substitute policy justifications for clear statutory language," wrote Judge Robert Beezer for the court.

On June 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, limiting review to Question 1 in Edelman's petition. The Court also asked the U.S. Solicitor General to file an amicus brief, expressing the view of the United States.

On March 19, 2002, the Court issued its opinion, reversing and holding unanimously for Edelman that he should be allowed to amend his complaint. Justice David Souter wrote the Court's lead opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O' Connor wrote separate brief concurrences.