In the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U. S. ____ (2019), the United States Supreme Court held that the charge-filing requirements for a Title VII employment discrimination claim may not be raised at any time and are subject to time limitations.
In this case, an employee filed an intake questionnaire with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Later, the employee wanted to allege additional religion-based discrimination claims but only indicated such on the intake questionnaire – the employee never amended the EEOC charge to include religion-based discrimination. After the applicable time period passed, the employee sued the employer for religion-based discrimination and retaliation.
The employer sought to dismiss the religion-based discrimination claims after several years of litigation as those claims were never included in the EEOC charge and, therefore, the employee failed to follow the Title VII administrative process. The employer argued that it was not time-barred from bringing such a defense as the defense was jurisdictional and could be brought at any time during litigation.
The United States Supreme Court disagreed with the employer, finding that “a rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title VII’s charge-filing requirement fits that bill.” Fort Bend *11. As a result, the employer forfeited raising the defense that the religion-based discrimination claims did not follow Title VII’s charge-filing requirement by not raising the defense earlier in the litigation.
This case has major implications for all employers. Based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision, employers must raise the failure to file a charge as a defense early in litigation or risk forfeiting the defense entirely.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.