In the case of Federal Express Corporation v. Paul Holowecki, et al., 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees who had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against their employer, FedEx. The issue at hand was whether an "intake questionnaire" submitted to EEOC could be considered as a formal charge of discrimination under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). FedEx argued that it wasn't because it didn’t meet certain technical requirements for such charges and thus they were not given proper notice or opportunity to conciliate before litigation began. However, the court held that if a filing is sufficiently precise to be reasonably construed as a request for agency action and appropriate relief on behalf of complainant then it can qualify as charge even without fulfilling all formal requirements. This ruling clarified what constitutes an official “charge” under ADEA and made clear that procedural technicalities should not prevent workers from seeking justice when they believe their rights have been violated.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Express Corporation v. Paul Holowecki, et al., Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, argued that the majority's interpretation of "charge" in relation to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) procedures was too broad. They contended that a document can only be considered a charge if it meets specific criteria outlined by EEOC regulations: namely, it must name the potential defendant and generally describe the discriminatory act. The dissenters believed this definition should not include documents like intake questionnaires which are often preliminary steps before an official charge is filed. They expressed concern that expanding this definition could lead to employers being blindsided with litigation without prior notice or opportunity for conciliation - undermining one of EEOC’s key functions.