Insight

Don’t Fall Asleep at the Wheel

Identify Exhaustion or Risk Waiving a Defense.

Don’t Fall Asleep at the Wheel
PG

Paul Goatley

October 1, 2019 02:30 PM

In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled, in Fort Bend County v. Davis, that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is merely a claim-processing rule, rather than a jurisdictional one. As a result, an employer who does not move to dismiss or, at a minimum, allege “failure to exhaust” as an affirmative defense in response to the complaint might waive the ability to seek dismissal on that ground. This decision serves as a good reminder to any lawyer representing employers in Title VII litigation: Identify any exhaustion issues immediately (or as soon as practicable) after the complaint is received or risk waiving that defense altogether.

Jurisdictional or Procedural?

As most employment attorneys already know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employees to file discrimination and retaliation claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or a similar state agency) before filing a lawsuit against their employers. These claims must be filed within 180 days of any alleged unlawful employment practice and can be extended to 300 days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, circuit courts disagreed on the significance of this step: Was this a jurisdictional requirement—meaning courts are deprived of jurisdiction over the lawsuit until a charge is filed with the EEOC—or a claim-processing rule, viewing the EEOC charge as a procedural element of the employee’s discrimination claim that can be waived if the charge is not challenged at the outset of litigation by the employer? Three circuit courts ruled the language was jurisdictional. Meanwhile, eight other circuit courts ruled the language was a claim-processing rule (i.e., procedural).

The case started when Lois Davis filed an internal complaint alleging the IT director at Fort Bend County, Texas, sexually harassed her. Fort Bend investigated her complaint and the IT director later resigned as a result. Nonetheless, Davis filed a charge against Fort Bend with the Texas Workforce Commission (Texas’ EEOC equivalent) claiming sexual harassment and retaliation. In so doing, she completed an EEOC intake questionnaire outlining the contours of her sexual harassment and retaliation claims.

The IT director’s resignation, however, did not resolve Davis’ workplace complaints. She claimed her supervisor (who was allegedly the IT director’s close friend) retaliated against her and eventually terminated her employment after she failed to report to work one Sunday due to a religious observation. After her termination, Davis amended her intake questionnaire—but not her charge—to include religion as another basis of discrimination. She then filed a lawsuit in district court, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and religious discrimination under Title VII. Fort Bend asked the lower court to dismiss all of Davis’ claims, which it did. Davis appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the lower court’s ruling on Davis’ religious discrimination claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On remand, Fort Bend argued to the lower court—for the first time, five years into the lawsuit—that Davis failed to exhaust her administrative remedies on the religious discrimination claim (i.e., she never included religion as a basis for discrimination in her EEOC charge). The lower court agreed with Fort Bend, holding that filing an administrative charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite in Title VII cases, and once again tossed Davis’ lawsuit.

On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Davis—an administrative charge is simply an element of a discrimination claim (which can be waived by the employer). Ultimately, this meant Davis could pursue her religious discrimination claim because Fort Bend did not allege a failure-to-exhaust defense after Davis filed her lawsuit in a timely manner.

SCOTUS Says Administrative Exhaustion Requirement Is Procedural

In October 2018, Fort Bend filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court to seek definitive guidance on the issue. In an opinion drafted by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is merely a claim-processing rule, and not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit. Therefore, a federal court may retain jurisdiction over a discrimination claim even if an employee fails to allege the basis for such a claim in their administrative charge. The Supreme Court found that Congress did not clearly state that Title VII’s administrative requirement is jurisdictional, and therefore courts must treat it as non-jurisdictional in nature.

Justice Ginsburg, however, cautioned would-be plaintiffs to not ignore Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Stating, “[d]efendants, after all, have good reason to promptly 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.” As a result, an employee still risks having a claim tossed if they do not first file a charge with the EEOC or relevant state agency. Likewise, an employer risks defending against a claim, which was never filed with the EEOC, if it does not assert failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense and move to dismiss on that ground.

Don’t Fall Asleep at the Wheel

What does this decision mean for litigators? Upon receipt of a Title VII complaint filed against a client, you should immediately and carefully review the administrative history, asking yourself these pertinent questions: Did the employee file a charge with the EEOC or the state equivalent? If so, did the employee assert the same claim(s), or those within the scope of the agency’s investigation, in that proceeding as in the lawsuit?

If not, advise your client to move to dismiss on that ground or, at the very least, include this as an affirmative defense in its response to the complaint. The former is preferable unless other procedural issues need to be addressed at the outset. An unwary lawyer who fails to move to dismiss or assert a timely failure to exhaust defense, risks waiving that defense…and, at the same time, likely waving good-bye to that client.

Paul Goatley is an attorney in Fisher Phillips’ Louisville, Kentucky office where his practice is exclusively devoted to representing employers in matters of labor and employment law.

Related Articles

Destiny Fulfilled


by Sara Collin

Was Angela Reddock-Wright destined to become a lawyer? It sure seems that way. Yet her path was circuitous. This accomplished employment attorney, turned mediator, arbitrator and ADR specialist nonpareil discusses her career, the role of attorneys in society, the new world of post-pandemic work and why new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson represents the future.

Interview with Lawyer Angela Reddock-Wright

Ketanji Brown Jackson Becomes Joe Biden’s Nominee for Vacant SCOTUS Seat


by Gregory Sirico

President Joe Biden has nominated former lawyer Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Biden Nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson

Biden’s History-Making SCOTUS Nominees


by Gregory Sirico

The promise of the first Black female Supreme Court Justice in history is on the verge of reality as the top three candidates for the most recent vacant seat are announced.

Biden Promises First Black Female SCOTUS Pick

Lecher Pays


by Ann E. Evanko and Katherine L. Wood

Can social change be sped up via legislation? A key provision of the recent tax-law overhaul, clearly written with #MeToo in mind, suggests it can.

Social Change Amid #MeToo

What New York's Child Victims Act Means for Public Schools


by Anastasia M. McCarthy

The new Child Victims Act is expected to have a profound and long-lasting impact on public school systems.

Understanding New York's Child Victims Act

Supreme Court Decision Will Play Important Role in Shaping Defendant Privacy Rights


by Gus Kostopoulos

The primary question will likely come down to whether or not cell phone data and location records are protected interests under the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant Privacy Rights

Send, Serve, or Both


by Holly M. Polglase and Matthew E. Bown

The Supreme Court decides the meaning of Article 10(A) of the Hague Service Convention.

Article 10(A) of the Hague Service Convention

Victory for The Slants and Redskins


by Carol Steinour Young and Emily Hart

On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court settled the issue of whether an offensive name—in this case, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants”—can properly be registered as a trademark.

The Slants Legal Case Decoded

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco


by Clifford J. Zatz and Josh Thomas Foust

The decision “may make it impossible to bring certain mass actions at all.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Mass Tort

Post-Conviction Relief


by Douglas Trant

In these post-conviction cases, we look for Constitutional violations that deprived the defendant of a fair trial and undermined confidence in the outcome.

Post-Conviction Relief

In the News: Austin/San Antonio


by Compiled by Tess Congo

A summary of newsworthy content from Austin/San Antonio lawyers and law firms.

Austin/San Antonio In the News

Trending Articles

Announcing the 2023 The Best Lawyers in America Honorees


by Best Lawyers

Only the top 5.3% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 29th edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Gold strings and dots connecting to form US map

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2023


by Best Lawyers

The third edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™ highlights the legal talent of lawyers who have been in practice less than 10 years.

Three arrows made of lines and dots on blue background

Announcing the 2023 The Best Lawyers in Canada Honorees


by Best Lawyers

The Best Lawyers in Canada™ is entering its 17th edition for 2023. We highlight the elite lawyers awarded this year.

Red map of Canada with white lines and dots

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers® in the United States


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and in the 2nd Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2022.

2022 Best Lawyers Listings for United States

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada 2023


by Best Lawyers

The year 2023 marks the second edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada, highlighting professionals earlier in their legal careers all across Canada.

Blue background with white stairs formed out of lines

All Eyes to the Ones on the Rise


by Rebecca Blackwell

Our 2023 honorees recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™ tell us more about how their path to law formed, what lead them to their practice areas and how they keep steadfast in their passion to serve others.

Person walking between glass walls towards window

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers in Canada™


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 16th Edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada™ and 1st Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers in Canada™

Press and Publicity: How Television and Social Media Impact Legal Careers


by Justin Smulison

In recent years, with social media giving minute by minute reporting, many lawyers are finding themselves thrust into a spotlight they never planned for. How are lawyers grappling with unexpected stardom, media coverage and merciless influencers?

Close up of camera at news station

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch – The Future of Legal Talent Looks Bright


by Justin Smulison

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch is launching its second edition in the United States, and after talking with both a company leader and esteemed lawyers on the list, the importance of this prestigious list is evident.

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America 2022

How A Claim Can Create A ‘Class’ of Its Own


by Justin Smulison

One civil claim can help a victim recover, prevent others from the same harm and even save lives. Tom Connick has experienced this directly, having been at the ground floor of injury claims that have led to high-value class action settlements.

Fire Consuming Paper Money

Famous Songs Unprotected by Copyright Could Mean Royalties for Some


by Michael B. Fein

A guide to navigating copyright claims on famous songs.

Can I Sing "Happy Birthday" in Public?

The Real Camille: An Interview with Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Camille Vasquez


by Rebecca Blackwell

Camille Vasquez, a young lawyer at Brown Rudnick, sat down with Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer to talk about her distinguished career, recently being named partner and what comes next for her.

Camille Vasquez in office

Protecting Small Business Owners: Trial Experts Connick Law LLC Notoriously Successful with Fire Litigation


by Justin Smulison

When small business owners become the target of insurance companies in fire-related lawsuits, hiring a firm with a reputation for understanding the science of fire suppression trials can save their livelihoods.

Gold Indoor Sprinkler Heads on Red Background

Introducing Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch


by Best Lawyers

Meet the next wave of top legal talent.

Ones to Watch

Announcing the 2022 "Best Law Firms" Rankings


by Best Lawyers

The 2022 “Best Law Firms” publication includes all “Law Firm of the Year” recipients, national and metro Tier 1 ranked firms and editorial from thought leaders in the legal industry.

The 2022 Best Law Firms Awards

Choosing a Title Company: What a Seller Should Expect


by Roy D. Oppenheim

When it comes to choosing a title company, how much power exactly does a seller have?

Choosing the Title Company As Seller