Is the Honeymoon Over - The Fate of the EEOC and the Early Right-To-Sue Letter
![handle is hein.journals/wasbur39 and id is 586 raw text is: IS THE HONEYMOON OVER? THE FATE OF THE
EEOC AND THE EARLY RIGHT-TO-SUE LETTER
[MARTINI V. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, 178 F.3D 1336 (D.C. CIR. 1999)]
I. INTRODUCTION
Who's on First, What's on Second and I Don't Know is on Third.!
Perhaps the famous comedy duo Abbott and Costello, in creating their
famous, amusingly confusing skit, was inspired by the same conundrum
that many players in the employment discrimination arena face today:
Does a premature right-to-sue letter issued by the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) bar a plaintiff from bringing a
cause of action under Title VII in federal court? A lethal combination
of ambiguous language in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 and
a federal regulation' promulgated by the EEOC, which permits com-
plainants to request and receive a right-to-sue letter prior to the statuto-
rily provided 180 day investigation period, has placed many courts in a
quandary.4
Faced with this dilemma, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia held that Title VII complainants must wait
180 days after filing charges with the EEOC before they may sue in fed-
eral court.'
This same court also found the EEOC regulation at issue to be
contrary to Congress' unambiguous policy of encouraging informal
resolution of charges up to the 180th day. In Martini v. Federal Na-
tional Mortgage Association,7 the D.C. Circuit's decision created a cir-
cuit split8 and has further muddied the issues regarding the EEOC's
1. Bud Abbott & Lou Costello, comedy sketch, performed at various times, notably in THE
NAUGHTY NINETIES (Universal Films 1945).
2. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1994) (enforcement provision). Title VII, in its entirety, is
contained in 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994).
3. See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a)(2) (1999) (permitting the EEOC to issue a right-to-sue letter
before 180 days has expired).
4. See generally Valerie J. Pacer, The Early Right-To-Sue Letter: Has the EEOC Exceeded its
Authority?, 72 WASH. U. L.Q. 757 (1994).
5. Martini v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 178 F.3d 1336, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
6. Id.
7. Id. at 1336.
8. See Sims v. Trus Joist MacMillan, 22 F.3d 1059, 1062 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that a right-
to-sue letter issued prior to 180 days is valid and in concert with congressional intent); Brown v.
Puget Sound Elec. Apprenticeship & Training Trust, 732 F.2d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/wasbur39&div=36&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Is the Honeymoon Over - The Fate of the EEOC and the Early Right-To-Sue Letter
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most