The case was filed because of age discrimination of employees who were employed as couriers by mail and pickup delivery services. The employees of 40 years of age and above filed the case in the United States Court for violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The case was filed against the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) who is the petitioner for discriminating their employees. The 14 respondents who were working as the employees of the FedEx company files a case in court of the United States on April 30th 2002. They claimed that alia; the Best Practice Pays (BPP) and Minimum Acceptable Performance Standards (MAPS) violated the ADEA. This company used the age discrimination as an alleged reason of harassing as well as discriminating their older couriers employees against the favor of the young ones.
The organization provided an explanation that the information required implementing of regulations. The organization claimed that, in order for the filing to be deemed a charge, the ADEA must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action. This will enable them to protect the rights of employees. The court dismissed the actions of the respondents arguing that the respondent, Patricia Kennedy did not follow the requirements of the EEOC when she was filing her charge. This is because the EEOC required one to take sixty days before filing for the case. Patricia argued her charge was valid because she filed it during late 2001. This was presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Form 83. She attached the Form 263 to the feedback form of an assigned affidavit. The form was a description of the alleged discrimination that revealed the workers’ discrimination in greater details.
The court revealed that the documents did not indicate that it was a charge, thus made a decision of granting the action by dismissing the case. However, after an appeal was made, the Court of Appeal reversed the case in order to make further clarifications. The court granted certiorari to reveal if the filing of the respondents was a charge. The Act is not a charge because an individual would not commence for an action in case the sixty days are not yet over as pertaining to the EEOC. The EEOC regulations provided term content, which was a kind of a comprehensive definition. The court deferred its interpretations when the agency summoned the authority to give justifiable interpretations, thus interpreting the ambiguous constitutional terms. Upon receiving such a charge, the Commission was required to notify all individuals named in such a charge as potential defendants in the action. Eventually, the court made a decision of dismissing the case basing on the reason that the respondent’s intake questionnaire. The conclusion made by the court based on the fact that filing the case through following the charge allegation was not valid due to lack of documentation support.