By: Aimee Christianson and Shaloni Pinto
{Read in 4 minutes} On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court released their decision in the case Fort Bend County v. Davis [No. 18-125], which involves Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim filing disagreements. This case involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a potential complainant’s administrative requirements with the EEOC.
Ms. Davis, a victim of alleged sexual harassment, retaliation and religious discrimination, filed a charge with the EEOC in a timely fashion. She formally filed a complaint referring to the alleged sexual harassment, and later included a handwritten additional allegation of religious discrimination on the EEOC’s questionnaire. When brought to the courtroom, her former employer sought to dismiss the case regarding religion, because Ms. Davis had not formally amended her initial EEOC complaint to include a claim of religious discrimination.
This issue finds home in questions regarding required actions in legal matters. Some rules, called jurisdictional requirements, describe the types of cases a court may hear or who the court exercises its authority over. They are non-waivable and derived directly from the law.
Other rules, sometimes known as claim-processing rules, are non-jurisdictional and imposed in order to ensure legal matters are solved in a timely manner. In the case of Title VII, the statute requires that employees must file charges with the EEOC in order to adjudicate their claim.
The district court dismissed her religion claim with prejudice, which was subsequently appealed. This case found itself in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where there had been no previous consensus regarding this issue. Also, many federal courts have had differing opinions on Title VII requirements. Previously, the Fifth Circuit had ruled that employee number requirements are non-jurisdictional, meaning the standard rule of coverage (employers with 15+ employees) can be waived in special circumstances. This holding was consistent with holdings in the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and DC Circuits, but was inconsistent with the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, causing a dissonance in the federal courts.
The question posed to the Supreme Court was: Is the Title VII administrative requirement to file a charge with the EEOC before litigation jurisdictional (non-waivable) or non-jurisdictional (waivable and subject to court discretion)?
The Court answered the question, choosing that Title VII’s mandatory claim-processing rule can be waived, rather than existing as a non-waivable “jurisdictional” rule. In the 9-0 decision, Justice Ginsburg authored the opinion of the court, holding that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement can be mandatory without being jurisdictional.
There are many instances in which the plaintiff (a worker) will add new allegations to their complaints to the EEOC under Title VII. The Court, holding that the charge-filing requirement is non-jurisdictional, does not give plaintiffs an opportunity to ignore these mandatory charge-filing requirements. However, employers can no longer request that a discrimination lawsuit should be thrown out of court because they did not immediately raise a defense to these additional claims. Fort Worth County waited too long to raise their defense to Ms. Davis’ additional religion-based discrimination claim. If the employer finds a problem with the plaintiff’s obligation to complete the mandatory charge-filing, they must readily write this objection in an answer to the plaintiff or in the motion to dismiss.
SCOTUS Finds Leniency in Exhausting EEOC Administrative Filing Requirements
Your Rights. Our Fight.
Contact Us Today To Schedule A Free Consultation
Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP - Press & News
NY Courts May Have to Redo Thousands of ForeclosureHearings Over Need for Appointed Counsel
By Brian Lee/ Law.com Thousands of foreclosure proceedings could potentially be headed for do-overs as a result of the court
Customer Service Reps Get Narrow Collective Cert. In OT Suit
By Abby Wargo/Law360 A Texas federal judge agreed Tuesday to certify a collective of customer service representatives alleging that a medical technologies corporation failed
Park co-naming expected for 2024
Lawsuit says Open Streets program for green space projects violates the ADA By Naeisha Rose/Queens Chronicle The grassroots effort to
5 Notable Workplace Bias Verdicts From 2023
By Anne Cullen/Law 360 Law360 (December 15, 2023, 6:32 PM EST) — A $36 million jury verdict that the U.S.
Marilyn Manson’s Former Assistant Wins Appeal to Revive a Previously Dismissed Sexual Assault Lawsuit
Ashley Walters claims Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall when she was his assistant
Marilyn Manson’s Ex-Assistant Wins Appeal, Can Sue for ‘Horrific’ Sexual Harassment and Assault
By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stone “This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for
Worker Settles Overtime Suit Against Home Remodeler
By Caleb Drickey/Law360 · 2023-10-16 19:49:04 -0400 · Listen to article A worker who accused a home remodeling firm of misclassifying him as an
Q&A: Attorney Sara Wyn Kane on Tough Sexual Assault Cases and New York’s Lookback Window
By Sara Hammel/The Landing As one of Delta Captain Andrea Ratfield’s attorneys, Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP is familiar with
‘I don’t want to be in the darkness anymore’: Bronx case worker sues DSS over alleged sexual abuse, retaliation
By Aliyah Schneider/ Bronx Times Disclaimer: This story details various accusations of sexual abuse. A homelessness case worker on unpaid
NYC May Need To Rethink Property Transfer Program
By David Holtzman/ Law360 Law360 (September 13, 2023, 8:45 PM EDT) — A City of New York program that transfers