and that the EEOC routinely treats such questionnaires as charges. See id. (considering EEOC’s treatment of questionnaire as a factor in determining whether a charging party manifested intent to activate the administrative process). UPS contends, however, that the EEOC did not actually treat Mr. Jones’s questionnaire as a charge. It notes that the EEOC twice told Mr. Jones that it was not treating the questionnaire as a charge of discrimination and that it never notified UPS that a charge had been filed, which it ordinarily must do within ten days of the filing of a charge, see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14(a). But the EEOC later sent Mr. Jones a dismissal and notice of his right to sue, which indicates it ultimately treated the questionnaire as a formal charge. See Wilkerson, 270 F.3d at 1321 (<HOLDING>). Even though the EEOC ultimately treated the
holding that circumstantial evidence may create a fact issue if from the evidence a reasonable person could conclude that the existence of the ultimate fact in dispute is more reasonable than its nonexistence holding that the eeocs enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to rule 23 holding that a plaintiff need not have notice of the defendants specific intention to deceive before the fraud action accrued all that is relevant is that a reasonable person  would have been on notice of a potential misrepresentation holding that the eeocs ultimate response combined with  other relevant facts would convince a reasonable person that plaintiff manifested her intent to activate the administrative machinery holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave