October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1072
Can a late sworn statement fix a job bias complaint?
A college argues a job bias complaint failed because it lacked a sworn statement. The complainant argues a later sworn statement fixes the error.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Blatt argued common law allows late sworn statements to fix complaints.
She claimed the agency adopted this rule in 1966.
Mr. Bell argued the agency cannot override clear statutory language.
He stated the law requires charges to be under oath immediately.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 49-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a job bias complaint survives if it lacks a sworn statement at first. A later sworn statement may fix the error under agency rules. The college claims the law requires the oath from the start.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
The complainant wants the court to accept the late sworn statement as valid.
The college wants the court to reject the complaint for lacking an initial oath.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
What each side says
The complainant argues agency rules allow late sworn statements to fix filing errors.
The college argues the law requires a sworn statement from the very beginning.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 49-3
Why it matters
This dispute defines how strictly courts enforce sworn statement rules in job bias cases. It affects whether complainants can fix minor filing errors later. It shapes the power of agencies to set procedural rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 49-3
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.