Gad v. Kansas State University, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8782

Gad filed an EEOC complaint against Kansas State University alleging discrimination in promotion to a tenure-track position.
She completed the EEOC intake questionnaire and a summary letter but did not verify the charge as required.
An EEOC investigator later sent Form 5 for signature; Gad did not sign or return it, citing advice she received.
The EEOC later issued a right-to-sue notice after investigation.
Gad sued in federal court; KSU moved for summary judgment arguing lack of jurisdiction due to nonverification.
The district court dismissed, relying on Shikles to treat exhaustion/verification as jurisdictional; on appeal, the court holds verification is non-jurisdictional and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is verification a jurisdictional prerequisite to Title VII suit?	Gad asserts verification is jurisdictional.	KSU contends verification is non-jurisdictional and waivable.	Non-jurisdictional; waivable defense; remand for waiver analysis.
If not jurisdictional, can verification be waived by the EEOC or defendant?	Waiver can occur if the EEOC or district court allows it.	Waiver depends on who had opportunity to raise the defect; district court must decide.	Waiver possible; remand to determine whether waiver occurred.

Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (jurisdictional status of time limits analyzed; non-jurisdictional where appropriate)
Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (2002) (verification can be cured; laypersons protected; non-defectiveness of defectant documents)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (Title VII employment-size requirement non-jurisdictional; limits on jurisdictional interpretation)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (framework for whether procedural rules create jurisdictional bars; clear statement rule)
Shikles v. Sprint/United Management Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (2005) (exhaustion as a jurisdictional prerequisite (overruled by later precedents))