Supreme CourT LimiTS empLoyerS’ DefenSe To Job DiSCriminaTion LawSuiTS
Labor & Employment Law Section
Chairs: Amanda Biondolino - Sass Law Firm and Jason Pill - Phelps Dunbar, LLC
The Supreme Court’s
ruling serves as a
warning for employers
not to delay in promptly
asserting such a defense.
I
n a unanimous June 3, 2019
ruling, the United States
Supreme Court limited
employers’ ability to have
job discrimination claims dismissed
when employees procedurally fail
to file a Charge of Discrimination
with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
or similar state agency. 1
The lawsuit — Fort Bend County,
Texas v. Davis — arose when
Fort Bend County employee Lois
Davis complained she was sexually
harassed by a supervisor, who
subsequently resigned. In her
EEOC charge, Davis alleged she
was retaliated against by another
supervisor for reporting the
harassment. While her EEOC
retaliation charge was pending,
the supervisor required her to
come to work on Sunday, and
when Davis failed to show because
of a prior church commitment,
she was terminated.
Notably, Davis never amended
her EEOC charge to include a
charge of religious discrimination.
Instead, Davis attempted to
supplement her EEOC charge by
handwriting “religion” on an intake
questionnaire form. After receiving
the right-to-sue letter, Davis filed
suit, alleging religious-based
discrimination and retaliation
for reporting sexual harassment.
The federal District Court granted
the County’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, but on appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of Davis’ religious
discrimination claim and sent the
case back to the District Court.
Years later in the litigation, for
the first time, the County asserted
that dismissal of Davis’s religious
discrimination claim was proper
because the District Court did
not have jurisdiction as Davis’s
religious discrimination claim had
not been asserted in her EEOC
charge. The District Court agreed
and dismissed the case. The Fifth
Circuit reversed the District
Court’s ruling, holding that Title
VII’s charge-filing requirement
is not jurisdictional and that the
County had waived the procedural
defense by waiting too long to
assert it. This prompted the County
to seek Supreme Court review.
In its ruling, the Supreme
Court held that the charge-filing
precondition to suit of Title VII is
not a “jurisdictional” requirement,
but rather a mandatory claim-
processing rule that is subject to
forfeiture if not timely raised.
Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg stated “[w]e hold
that Title VII’s charge-filing
instruction is not jurisdictional,
a term generally reserved to
describe the classes of cases a
court may entertain (subject-matter
jurisdiction) or the persons over
whom a court may exercise
adjudicatory (personal jurisdiction).”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s
ruling does not deprive employers
from continuing to move to dismiss
such claims because an employee
has failed to timely file a charge.
But as noted in the opinion, it
serves as a warning for employers
not to delay in promptly asserting
such a defense. As the Supreme
Court stated, “Defendants, after all,
have good reason promptly to raise
an objection that may rid them of
the lawsuit filed against them. A
Title VII complainant would be
foolhardy consciously to take the
risk that the employer would forgo
a potentially dispositive defense.” n
1
Fort Bend
County, Texas v.
Davis, ___ U.S.
___, 139 S. Ct.
1843 (2019).
Author: Elysse V.
Gorney - Phelps
Dunbar LLP
Plan to attend the Labor & Employment Section’s first CLE luncheon on November 6.
SEPT - OCT 2019
|
HCBA LAWYER
43