Employer Must Timely Assert a Title VII Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Defense or Waives the Defense
Posted in Discrimination
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that Title VIIs requirement that claimants exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before suing is not jurisdictional. The decision, issued in Fort Bend County v. Davis, means that an employer that fails to timely assert a failure to exhaust affirmative defense to a lawsuit waives the ability to later seek dismissal of the suit on this ground. As a result of the Courts ruling, employers need to be vigilant in timely asserting any failure to exhaust defense at the outset of litigation to preserve the defense.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. The plain language of Title VII sets forth an administrative process that a claimant must follow before filing suit. This process requires that a claimant begin by filing a Title VII charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Once a charge is filed, the claimant may leave the charge pending with the EEOC through the conclusion of the EEOCs process or, after 180 days, seek a right to sue notice to proceed to court. Under Title VII, a plaintiffs failure to appropriately complete the EEOC charge process is grounds to dismiss their case.
In Davis, plaintiff Lois Davis filed an EEOC charge alleging sexual harassment and retaliation by her former employer, Fort Bend County. Daviss EEOC charge did not assert religious discrimination. Davis later brought a lawsuit in federal court that included a claim of religious discrimination, as well as the claims asserted in her earlier EEOC charge. Fort Bend moved to dismiss Daviss claims, which the lower court did. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appels reversed the lower courts dismissal of Daviss religious discrimination claim, remanding this claim back to the lower court. At that point, for the first time in the litigation, Fort Bend asserted that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the religious discrimination claim based on Davis having failed to exhaust her obligation to file a charge on that claim with the EEOC. The District Court agreed, dismissing the claim. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that Fort Bend had waived the failure to exhaust defense by not timely asserting it earlier in the case.
The Supreme Court accepted review. Before the Court, Fort Bend argued that Title VIIs exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional that is, a failure to exhaust defense cannot be waived and federal courts lack the authority to hear unexhausted Title VII claims without exception. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that Title VII does not state that the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and, as such, courts must treat it as non-jurisdictional. The Supreme Court also stated, though, that the exhaustion requirement cannot be ignored, and an employee risks having a lawsuit claim dismissed for a failure to exhaust if an employer timely asserts a failure to exhaust affirmative defense.
As noted above, the Courts ruling means that employers with a failure to exhaust defense must timely assert that defense or risk losing it.
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
RSS Feed