The question is whether a particular complaint form, the intake questionnaire, constitutes a formal discrimination charge that can serve as the basis for a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA).

Under the ADEA, employees must wait 60 days after filing a formal EEOC complaint to bring a lawsuit against their employers. The rule is designed to give the employer sufficient time to investigate the charges and perhaps reach an out-of-court settlement with the employee.

Almost half of EEOC complaints are filed by small business employees, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, which filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Federal Express.

In 2006 the EEOC received more than 75,000 discrimination charges, only 5% of which had reasonable cause to go to court, according to Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB's legal foundation.

Harned argued that U.S. employers would face a surge in discrimination lawsuits if the justices decide that intake questionnaires qualify as discrimination charges.

"There has to be a filtering process or small business owners will be inundated with litigation," she said.

In December 2001, a Federal Express (Charts, Fortune 500) courier named Patricia Kennedy filed an EEOC intake questionnaire claiming that FedEx was in the habit of improperly firing older employees who did not meet the company's hourly delivery quotas.

The EEOC did not follow up on Kennedy's complaint. In April 2002, Kennedy and several other older employees, including Paul Holowecki, filed a class action suit against Federal Express. In May 2002, Kennedy belatedly submitted a formal discrimination complaint, known as a Form 5, to the EEOC.

A district court threw the case out on the grounds that plaintiffs were legally required to submit the Form 5 before filing suit against their employers. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that an intake questionnaire could indeed be considered a formal charge.

At yesterday's hearing, the justices concentrated on the issue of how the EEOC handles discrimination complaints. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that employees should not be held responsible for the EEOC's complex and often contradictory regulations.

"I don't understand the leap from government incompetence to the plaintiff losing," the chief justice told Federal Express advocate Connie Lensing.

The plaintiffs' advocate, David Rose, argued that the validity of a discrimination charge should not be a function of the form on which it was filed.

But Justice Antonin Scalia responded that employees were responsible for reading the forms that they filled out. "You can't run a system for people who are illiterate," Scalia said. But he also criticized the EEOC's procedures for handling discrimination complaints. "The problem is the EEOC," Scalia said. "What kind of agency is this?"

It may be months before the Supreme Court rules on Holowecki, but the outcome could force the EEOC to change its procedures for all discrimination complaints, including those that arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Title VII, which covers discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

"The decision in Holowecki will likely resolve the many inconsistencies among federal circuit courts of appeal on the issue of whether an EEOC intake questionnaire may constitute a charge of discrimination under the ADEA," said Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi School of Law, in his American Bar Association preview of the case.

"Depending on the breadth of the holding, the case may also answer this same question for related federal employment discrimination laws."

"We have answered every question, provided every requested piece of information and worked with you in good faith," he said in prepared testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Lawmakers have accused the company of holding back information in its role regarding the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao. The Chinese government accused Shi of leaking state secrets and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Yang, who became CEO this summer of the company he co-founded, also said Yahoo is committed to doing the right thing and protecting human rights globally.

"We are a company founded on openness, the exchange of information and user trust, and we believe deeply in free expression and privacy," he said.

Michael Callahan, the Internet company's general counsel, is expected to repeat a public apology he made last week regarding his failure to turn over new information to Congress in October 2006, months after he initially testified to two House subcommittees about Yahoo's role in the case.

The foreign affairs committee's chairman, California Democrat Tom Lantos, doesn't buy Yahoo's explanation of why it previously provided incomplete information to Congress.

"Yahoo claims that this is just one big misunderstanding. Let me be clear — this was no misunderstanding," Lantos said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"This was inexcusably negligent behavior at best, and deliberately deceptive behavior at worst," Lantos said.

Dubay, a 25-year-old from Saginaw Township, had said his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.

He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

But Lawson disagreed and rejected Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, N.Y. -- which prepared the suit -- nicknamed it "Roe v. Wade for Men" because it involves the issue of male reproductive rights. The nickname drew objections from women's rights organizations.

Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox later intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.
Dubay previously had acknowledged the suit was a long shot.

"As part of this process, we have met with and continue to cooperate with the DOJ. There has been no determination made at this stage that any anticompetitive behavior occurred," Rose said. "We are doing our utmost to conduct 'business as usual.' It is our intention not to disrupt our employees' routine or their ability to meet the needs of our customers."

Last month, Expeditors International said it received a subpoena from the Justice Department to hand over information and documents related to the investigation. It did not comment further at the time.

Bear Stearns analyst Edward Wolfe said then that the department's antitrust division is working with the European Union and other foreign officials to investigate "possible anticompetitive practices in the international freight industry."

A law firm said on Monday it had filed an investor lawsuit against Washington Mutual Inc, alleging it pressured a unit of First American Corp to inflate the appraisal value of homes.

The lawsuit comes after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued First American and its unit eAppraiseIT last week for allegedly colluding with Washington Mutual to inflate the appraisal values of homes. Cuomo did not name Washington Mutual as a defendant in his case.

The latest suit, which seeks to represent investors who bought Washington Mutual shares between July 19, 2006 and Oct. 31, 2007, also names certain officers and directors of the largest U.S. savings and loan, the law firm, Wolf Popper LLP, said in a statement.

Washington Mutual spokeswoman Libby Hutchinson said the company doesn't comment on the specifics of litigation.

But she added, "The integrity of our appraisal process is very important to us, and we work hard to make sure that it operates properly."

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in New York, alleges claims for securities fraud, the law firm said.

The complaint alleges that inflated appraisals led to Washington Mutual's financial results to be misstated, it said.

During closed court hearings, iRobot discussed three areas in which it claimed the company's trade secrets had been stolen by Robotic FX. Gertner refused to issue an injunction covering two of the areas, saying iRobot had revealed some of the information in a patent filing, thus undermining its status as a trade secret. But Gertner said there was good evidence that Robotic FX may have misappropriated iRobot technology used to make the rubber tracks that propel its robots. "While Ahed claims that he developed the track independently, this court will not credit his testimony," Gertner wrote. Because the tracks are vital to the operation of the Negotiator robots, the injunction is a major barrier to continued manufacturing operations at Robotic FX - at least until a trial is held in April.

Officials at Robotic FX did not return calls seeking comment.

The injunction is the second major setback in the past 10 days for Robotic FX. Last week, the Army said it was freezing its contract with the company, pending an investigation of whether Robotic FX, with only about 10 employees, could supply up to 3,000 robots over the next five years.