---

name: eeoc-position-statement language: en description: Drafts employer Position Statements responding to EEOC charges of discrimination. Builds a factual, strategically favorable narrative from charge documents, personnel files, policies, and comparator evidence. Covers Title VII, ADA, ADEA claims including disparate treatment, harassment, and retaliation defenses. Use when responding to an EEOC charge, drafting a position statement, defending against employment discrimination allegations, or preparing an agency investigation response. tags:

• drafting
• letter
• litigation

---

EEOC Position Statement

Drafts the employer's formal response to an EEOC charge of discrimination, shaping agency investigation findings while building a defensible record for potential litigation.

Prerequisites

1. EEOC Charge — charge number, allegations, protected bases, dates of alleged conduct
2. Charging party personnel file — hire date, position history, evaluations, disciplinary records, attendance
3. Workplace policies — anti-discrimination/harassment, disciplinary procedures, handbook
4. Comparator evidence — records for similarly situated employees outside the protected class
5. Corroborating records — emails, meeting notes, witness statements
6. Business justification documents — RIF criteria, promotion requirements, selection processes

Quick Start

1. Extract charge number, protected basis, specific allegations, and filing date
2. Map each allegation to the applicable claim framework (disparate treatment, harassment, retaliation)
3. Assemble chronological employment timeline with documentary support
4. Identify comparators and affirmative defenses
5. Draft per the output structure below
6. Verify all citations and confirm filing deadline (typically 30 days; extensions available)

Document Review Checklist

Item	Source	Verify
Charge number & filing date	EEOC charge	Exact match required
Protected basis/bases	EEOC charge	Title VII / ADA / ADEA / other
Specific allegations	EEOC charge	Map each to response section
Statute of limitations	Filing date vs. conduct dates	Flag untimely claims
Employment timeline	Personnel file	Hire → separation, all key dates
Documented performance issues	Evaluations, PIPs, warnings	Contemporaneous records only
Policy communication	Handbook acknowledgments, training records	Signed receipts preferred
Comparator data	HR records	Same supervisor, similar conduct, different class
Complaint/reporting history	HR files, hotline logs	Did CP use available channels?
Decision-maker knowledge	Emails, testimony	Awareness of protected activity (retaliation)

Output Structure

1. Header Block

RESPONDENT'S POSITION STATEMENT
EEOC Charge No. [number]

Respondent:     [Full legal name]
Address:        [Complete business address]
Charging Party: [Name as listed on charge]
Date:           [Submission date]

2. Introduction (1–2 paragraphs)

• Deny allegations or specify contested vs. acknowledged aspects
• Roadmap response structure
• Frame: legitimate business practices, consistent policy application
• Tone: professional, assertive, non-dismissive

3. Factual Background

Chronological timeline with specific dates, names, and titles:

Date	Event	Documentation
[Hire date]	Initial hire — position, department, supervisor	Offer letter, onboarding
[Date]	Performance milestones / issues	Evaluations, PIPs
[Date]	Relevant incidents	Emails, witness statements
[Date]	Employment decision at issue	Decision memo, policy basis

For each event include: date, individuals involved, actions taken, documentary corroboration, and any discrepancies with CP's account.

4. Allegation-by-Allegation Response

For each allegation:

1. Factual response — what actually occurred
2. Documentary contradiction — evidence disproving false/misleading assertions
3. Legitimate non-discriminatory reason — business justification
4. Absence of discriminatory intent — no nexus to protected characteristic

Claim-Specific Frameworks

Disparate Treatment:

• Comparator analysis: similarly situated employees outside protected class receiving same treatment
• If no true comparators: articulate material differences in conduct, performance, or circumstances

Harassment:

• Anti-harassment policy details: communication, training, complaint procedures
• CP complaint history: when reported, investigation, findings, corrective action
• If unreported: document available reporting mechanisms

Retaliation:

• Timeline showing: (a) no protected activity, (b) employer unaware, or (c) decision independent of activity
• Evidence of: decision-maker unawareness, pre-existing plans, temporal gaps, intervening reasons

5. Legal Analysis & Affirmative Defenses

Identify applicable statute(s) and assert defenses:

Defense	Application
Failure of prima facie case	Missing element(s) under McDonnell Douglas or applicable framework
Legitimate non-discriminatory reason	Business necessity, consistent policy application
No severe/pervasive conduct	Harassment below hostile work environment threshold
Prompt corrective action	Employer remediated upon notice
After-acquired evidence	Misconduct discovered post-decision
Statute of limitations	Untimely filing or stale allegations
BFOQ	If applicable to position
Procedural defects	Failure to exhaust, jurisdictional issues, wrong respondent

Cite EEOC regulations, compliance manual provisions, and controlling circuit/Supreme Court authority. [VERIFY] all citations.

6. Conclusion

• Request no-cause determination and dismissal
• State cooperation commitment
• Designate point of contact with full contact information
• Express openness to EEOC mediation (good faith, not admission)

7. Exhibits

Exhibit 1:  [Description — e.g., Anti-Discrimination Policy, rev. date]
Exhibit 2:  [Description — e.g., CP Performance Evaluations 2023–2025]
Exhibit 3:  [Description — e.g., Progressive Discipline Documentation]

• Number sequentially matching narrative reference order
• Redact irrelevant third-party personal information
• Include certification statement from authorized company representative

Pitfalls & Checks

• Discoverability: This document is discoverable if CP files suit — exclude attorney-client privileged communications, work product, and litigation strategy
• Evidence standard: Every factual assertion must be supported by documentary evidence or verifiable witness testimony; do not make unsupported claims
• Evidentiary gaps: Acknowledge honestly rather than overreach — credibility is paramount
• Tone: No personal attacks on CP, no dismissive language, no speculation about motives
• Comparators: Use specific names, dates, and outcomes — not generalizations
• Confidential material: Follow EEOC procedures for designating information that should not be shared with CP
• Deadline: Confirm response is within EEOC deadline (typically 30 days from notice)
• Length: 10–25 pages depending on complexity, plus exhibits