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
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
US appeals court adopts lower bar for proving workplace bias claims
By Daniel Wiessner/ Reuters Aug 21 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court has thrown out its unique decades-old precedent that
Female Delta Pilot Advances Sexual Harassment, Reprisal Claims
By Patrick Dorrian/ Bloomberg Law Delta Air Lines Inc. must face a female pilot’s claims of workplace sexual harassment and
The Curious Case of Pilot Andrea Ratfield
By Sarah Hammel/The Landing It’s the summer of 2020, and Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian is drafting an epic
Homeowners Say NY Courts Defy Law On Foreclosure Aid
By Marco Poggio | June 7, 2023, 4:43 PM EDT · Two Brooklyn homeowners accused New York’s court administrators and justices of the state’s
Class Action Lawsuit: Courts Denying Brooklyn Homeowners Facing Foreclosure Opportunity For Legal Representation
BROOKLYN – Today, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Yolande I. Nicholson, P.C., Mehri & Skalet PLLC, and Valli Kane &
VKV Partner Robert Barravecchio recognized for highest level of service by peers
Martindale-Hubbell, part of the Martindale-Avvo family, is proud to announce that the following attorneys have achieved a Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer
Federal jury awards woman $25.1 million in sex discrimination case against Omni Hotels and Resorts
DALLAS — A former Omni Hotels employee gained a $25.1 million jury award for wage discrimination in Dallas federal court