The Timing Of Filing An EEOC Claim Is Dependent Upon The Kind Of Unlawful Employment Practice The Employee Is Complaining About

In National Railroad Passenger Corp. [Amtrack] v. Morgan, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (2002), the United States Supreme Court considered whether or when an employee may file a claim alleging an unlawful employment practice partly based on events occurring outside the limitations period contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Facts

On February 27, 1995, Abner Morgan, a black male, filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation against his employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The EEOC issued a “Notice of Right to Sue” on July 3, 1996, and Morgan filed a lawsuit on October 2, 1996. Some of the acts about which Morgan complained occurred more than 300 days before he filed his complaint with the EEOC.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Under Title VII, employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . ..” An employee must file his complaint about an “unlawful employment practice” with the EEOC within either 180 or 300 days after it occurred; the time period depends on the state in which the events occur. In states like California, that have an agency authorized to handle Title VII claims, an Employee may initially file a grievance with the state agency, but must file any remaining complaint with the EEOC within 300 days. In all other states, he must file his complaint with the EEOC within 180 days.

The Court asked: what is an “unlawful employment practice,” and when does it occur? There are two kinds of unlawful employment practice: (1) discrete discriminatory acts, and (2) hostile work environment. The Court said that the kind of practice determines when it occurred.

A discrete act is something like “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” It is a separate, actionable event, even though it may be part of a pattern. An employee claiming discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file a claim with the EEOC within 300 or 180 days after the act occurs and can recover damages only for those acts occurring within that period. The discrete acts of which Morgan timely complained were that he was wrongly suspended, charged with insubordination, denied training, and falsely accused of threatening a manager. Although he cannot recover damages for older acts, he can introduce evidence of those acts as background to his claim.

A hostile environment claim, on the other hand, involves repeated conduct. “It occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own.” It is “based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.” An employee claiming a hostile work environment can file a claim within the appropriate time period after any act that is part of the hostile work environment and can recover damages for all acts that are part of the hostile work environment regardless of when they occurred. Morgan complained of a hostile work environment where “managers made racial jokes, performed racially derogatory acts, made negative comments regarding the capacity of blacks to be supervisors, and used various racial epithets.” Even though many of the acts occurred before the 300-day period, they comprised part of the same hostile work environment and, if proven, Morgan may recover damages for all of the acts, regardless of when they occurred.

Employers, however, can use traditional equitable defenses when an employee unreasonably delays filing a claim and employees can also employ traditional equitable defenses to excuse a delay in filing caused by an employer’s delaying tactics.

Conclusion

The Court’s opinion resolves some of the splits in the Circuits about when Title VII claims will be deemed timely. On a practical level, it supplies more workable timeliness standards. The case draws an important distinction between two types of claims: (1) discrete, tangible employment actions, such as hiring and firing, will be subject to a strict interpretation of the 180 or 300 day timeliness requirement as expressly stated in the statute; and (2) untimely acts of harassment will remain actionable if they are linked together with one or more timely acts to comprise a single violation of the statute under the “hostile environment” label.

This landmark Title VII case will undoubtedly be extensively cited. Given how broadly other Title VII standards have been adopted, there is a distinct possibility that the holdings in this decision may be applied to number of other federal and state anti-discrimination laws.