Update on Discrimination and Retaliation Claims


By: Rubeena Sachdev

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that for a Title VII claim relating to discrimination or retaliation, an employee must file a claim with the EEOC or a state agency prior to filing a lawsuit. The reasoning behind this ruling is procedural rather than jurisdictional. Employers must now initially assert a “failure to exhaust” defense, in order to seek dismissal of the claims filed in a lawsuit. Below is a summary of the two main points of the ruling.

  1. Jurisdictional or Procedural?
    • SCOTUS ruled that the Title VII administrative exhaustion requirement is a claim processing rule and not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit. Justice Ginsburg noted that when enacting Title VII, Congress did not expressly indicate any jurisdictional obligations. Therefore, if an employee does not allege the basis for a certain claim in their administrative action with either the EEOC or equivalent state agency, a federal court may still retain jurisdiction over that claim. However, an employee does risk their claim being dismissed if they do not file a charge with the EEOC or relevant state agency first. Per relevant law, employees must also file these claims with the EEOC or state agency within a certain time from any alleged unlawful employment practice.
  2. Failure to Exhaust Affirmative Defense
    • If a claim is not first filed with the EEOC or relevant stage agency, an employer waives the right to defend against a claim if it does not assert the failure to exhaust affirmative defense and move to dismiss on these grounds.

Employers must carefully review any complaint asserting a Title VII claim and scrutinize any EEOC or state agency claims filed before a lawsuit. It is essential to determine whether the claims filed and investigated by the agency are the same in scope to the complaint filed with a court. Consequently, if the employee has not first filed with the EEOC or state equivalent and if the claims are not within the scope of the agency investigation, then the employer should move to dismiss for failure to exhaust or at least assert this as an affirmative defense.

For additional information, please contact Rubeena Sachdev, attorney at law, at (408) 343-7610.

Latest Posts

Categories

  • Corporate Law
  • Tax
  • Immigration
  • Litigation
  • Family Law
  • Class Action
  • Corporate Formation And Formalities
  • Mergers And Acquisition
  • Joint Ventures
  • Employment Law
  • Real Estate
  • Intellectual Property
  • Doing Business In India
  • Entertainment
  • Estate Planning
  • Premarital, Marital And Cohabitation Agreements
  • Divorce And Legal Separation
  • Spousal Support / Alimony
  • Child Custody, Visitation And Parenting Time
  • Child Support
  • Government Contract
  • Corporate Immigration
  • Employment Based Permanent Residence (green Card)
  • H-1b Visas For Temporary Workers
  • Intracompany Transferee Visa (l-1a/l1b)
  • Tn Visas
  • Labor Certification And National Interest Waiver
  • I-9 Compliance
  • O-1 Visa (individuals Of Extraordinary Ability)
  • H-2 Visas
  • B-1 Visa
  • Family-based Immigration
  • Permanent Residence
  • K Visas
  • International Adoption
  • Us Citizenship & Naturalization
  • Investors
  • Eb-5 Green Card
  • Treaty Trader Visa E-1
  • Treaty Investor Visa E-2
  • Students And Work Authorization
  • F-1 Student Visa
  • M-visas
  • Removal Defense
  • Victims Of Crime
  • Vawa
  • U Visas
  • T Visas
  • Other Immigration Categories
  • International
  • Landlord & Tenant
  • Personal Injury
  • Tax Law
  • Overseas Education Consultancy
  • Universal

© 2024 Chugh LLP Affiliate Network. All Rights Reserved