"In sum, a rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title VII's charge-filing requirement fits that bill," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional. On June 3, the Supreme Court sided with the worker, affirming a 5th U.S. Rather, she said, it is a mandatory claim-processing rule, which the employer waived by waiting too long to raise its objection. The employee, however, argued that the requirement is not jurisdictional. In other words, the employer argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the religious discrimination claim because the plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available through the EEOC. Then, the employer argued for the first time that the religious discrimination claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to properly file a charge with the EEOC before suing.ĭespite participating in litigation for several years, the employer argued that the lawsuit was completely barred because the EEOC's administrative complaint process is a jurisdictional requirement. ![]() She ultimately filed a lawsuit, and, after several years of court proceedings, only the religious discrimination claim remained. Later, she tried to add a charge for religious discrimination by handwriting "religion" on an EEOC intake form-but she never updated the formal charge document. She initially filed a charge with the EEOC asserting Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation claims against her employer. ![]() ![]() ![]() An employee could still have a claim tossed out of court if she or he doesn't first file a charge with the EEOC or relevant state agency, said Paul Goatley, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Louisville, Ky., and Jeffrey Fritz, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Boston, in a joint statement.įederal law generally requires employees to go through the EEOC's administrative complaint process before filing a discrimination lawsuit, but the plaintiff in this case took one of her claims straight to court. The high court clarified, however, that employees cannot simply ignore Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirement. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that "the requirement to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or similar state agencies isn't a jurisdictional issue." In other words, the onus is on employers to assert in a timely way that a plaintiff failed to meet the charge-filing requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or they waive that defense, said JoLynn Markison, an attorney with Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis.Įmployers and their counsel should bring any procedural defects to the court's attention at the earliest practical juncture, said David Morrison, an attorney with Goldberg Kohn in Chicago. Therefore, the employer forfeited its argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the U.S. An employer waited too long after an employee filed a discrimination lawsuit to point out that the worker failed to properly file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before suing in court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |