EEOC is investigating me based on an action filed by a disgruntled employee. (All else has failed, so now she pulls the race/sex card.) Yesterday EEOC demanded a bunch of documents via a phone call. I told them I could not produce on such short notice, they wanted everything by 5pm. They said I had been notified May 17 that the deadline was 7/10. I said I had not. They said they e-mailed me, and it probably went into my spam folder. My legal department says we have to comply, and an email request is valid.

I think this is crap. What say the great legal minds? Is email considered "service"?

Not a legal mind, but in real estate transactions, email is becoming the de facto methodology for transmitting certain documents.

Sadly, your legal department is probably correct, but, EEOC should be compelled to provide proof of the email receipt in the form of a read receipt or other proof.

Good luck with this cluster. Hope you prevail.

RMD

Communication like this email you say you didn't receive would not be considered "service" or notice if challenged in a court proceeding where I practice -- Michigan -- but that doesn't mean much to you in Kentucky. However, the follow-up phone call you answered puts you on definite actual notice of this investigation. So if it's a legitimate investigation, you will need to act eventually. Are you the business owner? Or the supervisor in a business where this former employee worked? Your legal department should include an attorney (get one if you don't have one) with an expertise in this area who should be fielding this question. Good luck!

quote:

Is email considered "service"?

Yes.

https://nxg.eeoc.gov/rsp/resou...20Guide_02.02.16.pdf

What is wrong with these people? Spoofing an originating email address has been around for decades. You might not successfully change the originating IP address, but then how would the receiver know the correct IP of a legitimate sender?

I am not a lawyer, but I have locked horns with the government once or twice.

I would have my lawyer file a motion in COURT for lack of proper service and let them prove your received it.

They are going to have a real hard time.

After the motion is filed, have your lawyer talk to them working out a schedule of timeline to trial.

It is not fun, or cheap.

I had a woman sue me for discrimination because I had her evicted. It was because she had dozens of cats she was not taking care of.

You could smell it down the block.

The health department went in with hazmat suites.

I had to rip out the floors.

We had a hearing, no discrimination,
She appealed to the court, no discrimination.

She appealed again, appealed denied.

It's not fun or cheap.

quote:

My legal department says we have to comply, and an email request is valid

You need a new legal department. They have to show proof of service.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
Yes.

https://nxg.eeoc.gov/rsp/resou...20Guide_02.02.16.pdf

That's the enemy's information you're believing. The EEOC says it's sufficient, because that's to their advantage.

In court they have to prove to a judge that you received the subpoena. Not that they sent it, that you received it.

Also a phone call is insufficient. There's no way to prove they are who they say they are over the phone. IRS got a warrant for you that you can cancel with some gift cards?

Personal service is the only way for them to PROVE they served you.

quote:

email is becoming the de facto methodology for transmitting certain documents.

There are ways to do it but of the EEOC used them they would know he hadn't read it.

EEOC is an agency, and often they have their own notions of how to proceed.

Is it the federal EEOC, or some state outfit?

Your legal department must have some authority for their view they can cite.

Administrative law can be informal in some respects, much less so than court proceedings, but some niceties must be observed.

I have been in IT for 25 years, my second career, in my first, the USAF, "communication" (and more specific, "proper communication" was hammered like a stubborn nail. That said, I know what communication is, and the short examples is;

Message, sender, receiver, acknowledgment.

Meaning, there needs to be a "message", one sends the "message", another receives the message, and the receiver acknowledges the got the message.
(Yeah, I know it seems so simple and mundane, but most ills in the world are people missing such a simple thing)

And email is one of the worst methods of "service" there is.

I never much cared for the "newspaper notice" as a method, but understand how it can be a "standard of service of notice", sine anyone can obtain the paper.

But there is no guarantee of deliver of an email for a ton of causes and reasons, and expectation that it is reliable as a means of communication is beyond pathetic.

And it will remain until there is a method of guarantee that all four elements of communication are assured 100% completeness every time.

Sorry to rant in your rant.

But so many abuses of email on so many levels, is almost infuriating if I think on it to long. So, thank the gods for the cat pichurz thread...

That's where you can find me, getting some zen.


I hope you prevail on the action.

 
There are basically 3 phases to the email transaction.

1. Original sender using desktop client, e.g. Outlook sends to EEOC's mail server, which accepts it (or not). This result will be logged on the EEOC server.

2. EEOC server sends (attempts to) Fredward's designated receiving server (your ISP usually). The result of this transaction will at the least be logged on the EEOC server, and if a connection is made and the two servers talk, it will also be logged on Fredward's server. Assuming it was delivered, EEOC will log something like "status=sent", and Fredward's server should log the receipt.

3. Fredward's server is responsible for final delivery to Fredward's inbox. The success or failure of that will be logged on Fredward's server.

Different organizations have different policies on keeping/archiving logs. Email server logs can get quite lengthy, but searching them is easy given a few particulars, such as Fredward's email address and date(s). If all of the logs still exist, it can be established the full (or partial) path the email took.
 

Corporate decided to comply and kept HR late to submit the requested documents. Attorneys at HQ said the case is so weak against this office that they'd rather proceed and prevail than argue technical issues. Interesting discussion, though. No, I have no personal involvement in this issue other than as a manager.

>> Is email considered "service"?

> Yes.

That's crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Corporate decided to comply and kept HR late to submit the requested documents. Attorneys at HQ said the case is so weak against this office that they'd rather proceed and prevail than argue technical issues. Interesting discussion, though. No, I have no personal involvement in this issue other than as a manager.

Which is precisely how this crap becomes accepted practice.

If the government is going to demand anything from any person or entity, they should be required to verify the correct person or entity has actually received said demand.