Connection lost
Server error
FEDERAL EXP. CORP. v. HOLOWECKI Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that an EEOC intake questionnaire and affidavit can constitute a “charge” under the ADEA if it reasonably requests agency action, deferring to the EEOC’s interpretation.
Legal Significance: Established that a filing with the EEOC constitutes a “charge” under the ADEA if it objectively manifests an intent to request agency action, affording deference to the EEOC’s interpretation.
FEDERAL EXP. CORP. v. HOLOWECKI Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, current and former FedEx couriers over 40, sued FedEx, alleging its performance standards programs violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). FedEx moved to dismiss plaintiff Patricia Kennedy’s claim, arguing she failed to file a “charge” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at least 60 days before suing, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). Kennedy had submitted an EEOC Form 283, an “Intake Questionnaire,” and a signed affidavit detailing the alleged discrimination and requesting the EEOC to “force Federal Express to end their age discrimination plan.” The ADEA does not define “charge.” The District Court found these documents did not constitute a charge, but the Second Circuit reversed. The EEOC’s regulations provide some guidance but do not offer a comprehensive definition. The EEOC, as amicus curiae, argued that a filing is a charge if it reasonably requests the agency to take remedial action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What constitutes a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and did the respondent’s submission of an Intake Questionnaire and accompanying affidavit to the EEOC meet this definition?
The respondent’s Intake Questionnaire and attached affidavit constituted a “charge” under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in v
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
What constitutes a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and did the respondent’s submission of an Intake Questionnaire and accompanying affidavit to the EEOC meet this definition?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the definition of a "charge" under the ADEA, emphasizing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a filing with the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cu
Legal Analysis
The Court first addressed the ambiguity of the term "charge" in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod te
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A filing with the EEOC is a “charge” under the ADEA