Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Illinois Agency's Complaint Information Sheet Is Not Administrative Charge: Seventh Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-004-3929 (Approx. 4 pages)
Illinois Agency's Complaint Information Sheet Is Not Administrative Charge: Seventh Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 04 Nov 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Carlson v. Christian Bros. Servs., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the "Complainant Information Sheet" (CIS) filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) by a former employee did not qualify as a "charge" of discrimination.
On October 27, 2016, in Carlson v. Christian Bros. Servs., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the "Complainant Information Sheet" (CIS) filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) by a former employee did not qualify as a "charge" of discrimination (charge) ( (7th Cir. Oct. 27, 2016)).
Jacquelyn Carlson, a senior customer service representative of Christian Brothers Services (CBS), was in a car accident in March 2011, as a result of which she limped and had to use a cane. Carlson was terminated on February 1, 2012.
Carlson sued CBS, alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability in violation of the ADA. Under the ADA, a complainant must both:
- Submit a charge to the EEOC within 300 days from the alleged incident of discrimination.
- Receive a right to sue notice from the EEOC before suing.
Six months after her termination, Carlson filed a CIS with IDHR (under the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 to 5/10-104), and 398 days after her termination, Carlson filed a charge with IDHR, with a copy provided to the EEOC.
The district judge granted summary judgment for CBS on the ground that Carlson had failed to submit a charge in time and therefore could not maintain her suit.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the CIS filed with the IDHR by Carlson did not qualify as an EEOC charge.
The Seventh Circuit noted that:
- Under a worksharing agreement with EEOC, a charge filed with IDHR is automatically cross-filed with EEOC.
- A CIS is not the same as a charge.
- A charge is the administrative equivalent of a complaint filed in court; a CIS is not unless it asks for relief and therefore functions as a charge (Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008)).
- Without a request for relief, a CIS is just a pre-screening form, and unlike a charge, does not prompt IDHR to:
- notify the employer;
- launch an investigation; or
- sponsor mediation between the parties.
The Seventh Circuit found that:
- There was no pre-charge settlement with CBS.
- Carlson's attorney did contact IDHR in 2012 about the possibility of mediation, but nothing came of it.
- The deadline to file a charge with the EEOC when the complainant had initially instituted a proceeding with a state or local agency is 300 days (42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1)). Therefore Carlson failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
- Although Carlson filed the CIS within the deadline, it did not request remedial action, and therefore was not a charge, for example:
- the statement in the CIS that it "authorize[s] EEOC to look into the discrimination alleged" does not make it a charge; and
- although the CIS form does say that IDHR will cross-file the complainant's "charge of discrimination" with EEOC, it also says "THIS IS NOT A CHARGE," followed immediately by the statement that "if IDHR accepts your claim, we will send you a charge form for signature." This statement makes clear that the claim was merely a prelude to a charge, and not the charge itself.
- Carlson was represented by counsel throughout, and therefore can't plead ignorance of legal technicalities.
This decision highlights the importance of counsel understanding the distinction between an IDHR CIS and an EEOC charge, and having knowledge of each form's respective deadline.