EEOC v. Vantage Drilling Company, 954 F.3d 749

Background

David Poston worked on a deep-water drillship, suffered an on-the-job heart attack, was placed on short-term disability, and was discharged by Vantage the day he was due to return to work (Oct. 2, 2014).
Poston’s counsel submitted an EEOC intake questionnaire and cover letter on Feb. 20, 2015 (the questionnaire was unverified but checked Box 2 authorizing the EEOC to investigate); the EEOC stamped it received and assigned a charge number.
The EEOC informed Poston’s counsel that a verified Form 5 was required; Poston later executed a verified Form 5 dated Sept. 7, 2015, which the EEOC received Oct. 13, 2015 (outside the 300-day filing window).
The EEOC investigated, found reasonable cause, conciliation failed, and the EEOC filed an enforcement action alleging ADA discrimination on Poston’s behalf.
Vantage moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust/timeliness; the district court dismissed with prejudice in one sentence, reasoning the intake questionnaire was not a verified charge.
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the intake questionnaire qualified as a charge under Holowecki and that later verification related back under Edelman, so dismissal was erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an EEOC intake questionnaire can constitute a "charge" under the ADA/EEOC rules	Intake questionnaire satisfied EEOC content rules and Box 2 manifested a request for EEOC action, so it is a charge	Intake questionnaire was informal/sparse and the EEOC sometimes called it incomplete, so it cannot be a charge	Court: Yes; under Holowecki an intake questionnaire meeting objective content and request-to-act criteria qualifies as a charge
Whether a later-verified Form 5 filed after 300 days can relate back to an earlier intake questionnaire	Edelman and EEOC regs allow cure of technical defects (including verification) and relation-back to the original filing date	Because the verified Form 5 was filed after 300 days, the claim is untimely and cannot be cured by later verification	Court: Yes; Edelman permits verification outside the filing period and the regulation causes the verified charge to relate back
Whether ambiguous EEOC treatment (e.g., requesting verification; not labeling intake as a charge) or Melgar/Patton control to deem the intake insufficient	EEOC’s characterization is not dispositive; objective criteria control and Poston’s questionnaire met them	Prior decisions (Melgar, Patton) show similar questionnaires could be deficient; this one is like those	Court: Melgar/Patton do not compel dismissal; objective Holowecki standard controls and Poston’s questionnaire satisfied it
Whether EEOC’s delayed formal notice to employer (beyond 10 days) prejudiced Vantage and bars suit	No prejudice shown; courts allow suit absent employer prejudice or bad faith by EEOC	Failure to notify within 10 days violated statute and prejudiced Vantage	Court: Delay alone does not bar suit; employer must show prejudice and Vantage did not do so

Key Cases Cited

Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (a questionnaire can be a charge if it meets EEOC requirements and reasonably requests agency action)
Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (2002) (verification defects may be cured and amended charges may relate back to original filing)
Patton v. Jacobs Engr. Grp., Inc., 874 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2017) (discussed scope of claims in intake materials; distinguished here)
Melgar v. T.B. Butler Pub. Co., 931 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2019) (refused to treat a deficient intake questionnaire as a charge where agency could not draft a charge)
EEOC v. Airguide Corp., 539 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1976) (employer must show prejudice from EEOC delay in notifying of a charge)
EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984) (failure to notify within 10 days does not automatically bar suit absent prejudice or bad faith)
Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (applied Holowecki to similar intake/charge issues)