Client Alerts & Insights
Scotus Makes Defending Job Bias Claims More Difficult for Employers
June 3, 2019
Authored By:
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that employers in discrimination claims can waive their right to assert that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
The case, which originated in Texas, dealt with the religious discrimination claim of Lois Davis (“Davis”) against her employer, Fort Bend County (“Fort Bend”). Fort Bend argued that Davis failed to include her religious discrimination claim in the administrative charge that she previously filed with the EEOC and that, as such, the claim should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Fort Bend’s relief by setting forth that (1) administrative exhaustion is merely an element of the claim that the worker must prove in order to take the claim to trial; (2) failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which, if proven, could result in dismissal of the claim prior to trial; (3) failure on the part of the employer to timely raise the defense will result in waiver of the right to assert it; and (4) Fort Bend, in waiting five years and a round of appeals to assert the failure to exhaust defense, had waived its right to do so.
On Appeal, The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the 5th Circuit and held that a Plaintiff’s requirement to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or similar state agencies isn’t a jurisdictional question, and is merely an element of the Plaintiff’s claim. As such, employers who fail to timely raise the defense may waive their right to do so.
The decision settled a significant circuit split on the issue. Eight circuit courts had ruled that pre-suit exhaustion is just an element of making a discrimination claim, while three had held that it’s a jurisdictional obligation not subject to waiver.
While the Supreme Court did not set forth a specific time-frame within which employers should assert the failure to exhaust defense to avoid waiver, employers and their counsel should take care to assert the defense in the answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint or as soon thereafter as possible.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Margo Wolf O’Donnell at modonnell@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4982.
Joseph R. Blalock at jblalock@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9359.
Latest News
Customs Duty Assists: Regulatory Compliance Overview and FAQ
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
TSA Authorized Representatives—Emerging Practice of Engaging Freight Brokers and Its Practical Implications
Air transportation safety has long been of critical supply chain importance and geopolitical significance, and that role is growing. Supply chain constraints over this decade have driven a need for adaptation, modal diversification and cost containment. To do so, authorized air cargo providers have increasingly explored new ways to add capacity for regulated surface transportation.
Chameleon Carriers—FMCSA’s “Reincarnated” Rule and Enforcement
As the U.S. DOT and its FMCSA ramp up certain elements of domestic enforcement, regulators are utilizing existing laws and regulations that previously were not often invoked. Enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement is one great example.
What’s Old Is New Again: Broker Liability Insulation from the Case Law in the Post-Montgomery Era
The Supreme Court has spoken in its Montgomery v. Caribe Transport decision, and the brokerage sector, and even shipper and motor carriers, are working toward adapting to this “new liability regime.”