EEOC and Agency Charge Position Statement Drafter
When a charge of discrimination or retaliation arrives and you have the personnel file and witness notes but need a sourced first draft before the response deadline.
The position statement is often the employer's first and most lasting account of what happened. Investigators read it against the charge, and the statement may be shared with the charging party, whose reply can expose any gap between what the employer said and what its own records show. A draft that overstates the facts, offers a reason the file does not support, or names a weak comparator can do more harm than a short, accurate one.
This prompt puts the charge, the labeled documents and the interview notes in separate tags, then asks for a conventional structure: background, employment history, allegation-by-allegation response, the legitimate business reason, a comparator table and an exhibit list. Every factual sentence carries a source tag, unsupported statements are marked for confirmation, and a separate risk review quotes the lines most likely to be used against the employer.
Claude can organize the record and expose inconsistencies, but it cannot interview witnesses, judge credibility or know the agency's current procedures. Counsel must confirm every fact with the client, decide what goes in the body versus a confidential attachment, add and verify any legal authority, and sign off on the final submission. Treat the output as a working draft, not a filing.
The Prompt
I represent the employer, [COMPANY], responding to the charge below, filed with [EEOC / STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY]. Response due: [DATE]. Our position in one sentence: [THEORY, e.g., the termination followed documented attendance violations handled the same way for all employees]. <charge> [PASTE THE CHARGE AND ANY AGENCY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION] </charge> <documents> [PASTE EACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENT WITH A LABEL, e.g., DOC 1: Attendance policy; DOC 2: Final warning; DOC 3: Termination memo] </documents> <notes> [PASTE INTERVIEW NOTES OR HR SUMMARY, LABELED NOTES 1, NOTES 2] </notes> Draft a first-draft position statement with these sections: Introduction; Company background and relevant policies; Charging party's employment history; Response to each allegation, in the order the charge raises them; Legitimate, non-discriminatory (or non-retaliatory) reasons; Comparator analysis as a table (employee, conduct, decision-maker, outcome), using only people named in the documents; Conclusion; Exhibit list. Rules: - Tie every factual statement to its source in brackets, e.g., [DOC 2]. If a statement has no source, mark it [UNSUPPORTED: CONFIRM]. - Do not go beyond what the documents say. Do not cite cases or regulations. - After the draft, add a Risk review: quote each statement that could hurt the employer if the agency shares the statement with the charging party or if it later proves inaccurate (shifting reasons, admissions, references to protected characteristics, anything another document contradicts). - List material that may belong in a separately labeled confidential attachment (medical information, comparators' personal data, trade secrets), subject to [CONFIRM CURRENT AGENCY PROCEDURE]. - End with open questions for the client. This is a draft for attorney review before anything is submitted.
Example Output
A sectioned position statement with every fact tagged to a document, a comparator table, an exhibit list, a quoted risk review and open client questions.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
POSITION STATEMENT (FIRST DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Respondent: Calder Freight Services, LLC | Charging Party: D. Mensah I. INTRODUCTION Calder Freight denies that it discriminated against Mr. Mensah. His employment ended on June 14 after a third documented safety violation under the Yard Safety Policy, which the company applies to all yard associates. [DOC 1] [DOC 3c] II. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Mr. Mensah was hired as a yard associate on April 3, 2023. [DOC 2] He received written warnings on January 9 and March 22 for operating a forklift without a spotter, and a third violation was recorded on June 10. [DOC 3a] [DOC 3b] [DOC 3c] III. LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON The Yard Safety Policy states that "a third Category A violation within twelve months results in termination." [DOC 1, p. 4] IV. COMPARATOR ANALYSIS Employee | Conduct | Decision-maker | Outcome Associate A | Three Category A violations | T. Ruiz | Terminated [DOC 6] Associate B | Two Category A violations | T. Ruiz | Final warning [DOC 7] V. EXHIBIT LIST Ex. 1 Yard Safety Policy; Ex. 2 Offer letter; Ex. 3a-3c Warnings and incident report; Ex. 4 Termination memo. RISK REVIEW 1. NOTES 2: supervisor said Mr. Mensah "had an attitude after his leave." This could suggest retaliation if disclosed. Not used in the draft; discuss with client. 2. DOC 4 cites "performance concerns" while DOC 1 supports a safety rule. Shifting-reason risk. Align before submission. 3. "Calder has never received a similar complaint" [UNSUPPORTED: CONFIRM]. CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT CANDIDATES Comparators' names and disciplinary records. OPEN QUESTIONS Did Mr. Mensah request leave in May? Who decided the termination?
Tips
- •Label every pasted document before you run the prompt. The [DOC 3] tags are what let you check each sentence quickly.
- •Assume the charging party will read the statement. Read the Risk review section first and resolve each flagged item before polishing the prose.
- •Watch for shifting reasons. If the termination memo and the notes give different explanations, fix the record problem with the client rather than the wording.
- •Keep the comparator table limited to people the documents actually show as similarly situated, and confirm each comparator with the client.
- •Confirm the agency's current submission and confidentiality procedures, and verify any legal authority you add later. The output is a draft for attorney review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will the agency share my position statement with the charging party?
Assume it may. Agencies commonly allow the charging party to obtain the employer's position statement and respond to it, which is why the prompt includes a risk review of statements that would be harmful in the charging party's hands. Confirm the specific agency's current procedures for sharing and for confidential attachments before you finalize the submission.
Why does the prompt forbid case citations?
A position statement is primarily factual, and invented or misremembered authority would damage credibility with the investigator. If you want to add legal framing, research it separately in a verified source and insert it yourself. Keeping Claude focused on the documents also makes it easier to check that every sentence is supported.
What should I do with statements marked UNSUPPORTED?
Treat each one as a task. Either find the document that supports it and add the tag, confirm it with a witness and document that confirmation, or delete it. Unsupported assertions are exactly the statements that cause trouble later if discovery or the charging party's reply contradicts them.
Can in-house counsel use this without outside counsel?
Yes, the structure works for in-house teams preparing their own responses or a draft for outside counsel. The same rules apply: confirm facts with decision-makers, review the risk list, verify any legal authority, and follow your organization's AI use policy before pasting personnel records into any tool.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.