U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Employer’s Technical Defense in Religious Discrimination Case

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Employer’s Technical Defense in Religious Discrimination Case
For years, employers have argued that employees’ claims should be dismissed when they have not properly filed a Charge of Discrimination (“charge”) with the EEOC or the respective state agency. The argument was that if an employee had not followed each step correctly, a court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The steps at issue included things like filing a charge too late, or not having all of the proper wording in a charge to raise all of the employee’s claims against the employer.
Without jurisdiction, a court does not have the right to hear a case at all, whether or not an employee has a strong case. Sometimes, courts receive these motions to toss cases out only after an employee and his or her attorney pursue a case for years. That’s what happened in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. ___ (2019). The Supreme Court (Ginsburg, J.), wrote that Title VII’s charge filing rules do not govern whether a court has jurisdiction over an employee’s case at all. Instead, these rules are just “claims-processing” rules. They are still mandatory rules, but if an employer waits too long to raise the problem with the trial court, the court is not required to throw out the case.
The Fort Bend opinion did not change the rules about filing charges. It does open a door for courts to consider whether an employer’s objections are timely and if not, whether an employee should be allowed to proceed with his or her case even if they filed a bad charge. At the end of the opinion, the Court cautioned both employers and employees. Employees are still expected to file timely and complete charges, or risk losing a case. Employers must now timely object to problems they see with a charge so a judge can decide early on whether the case can move forward. There will be a slew of new cases testing the scope of the Fort Bend decision, but no one should rely on it to save them from missing a deadline or faiiling to raise an affirmative defense early on in a lawsuit.
The Fort Bend decision reminds all of us to carefully consider our claims, deadlines and defenses. If you have questions about the deadlines that apply to discrimination and harassment claims, do not hesitate to contact Deena Buchanan at de***@**********aw.com or 505-900-3559. You can also read the full opinion here https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-525_m6hn.pdf.
We have recovered tens of millions of dollars for our clients.
Hospital negligence resulted in catastrophic injury. This was a case involving a patient who entered the hospital for routine observation but left the hospital with catastrophic and permanent injuries due to neglect and improper treatment. This case involved extensive expert testimony on all aspects of the client’s care, both by hospital administration, hospital employees, and contractors who were involved in her treatment.
Semi-truck negligence caused wrongful death. This case involved a semi-truck driver who was intoxicated on illegal substances and killed our client. The key to this case was both aggressive discovery work, and understanding the trucking laws that regulate truck drivers and motor carriers, so we could prove how reckless it was to put the driver on the road that day.
Semi-truck negligence caused catastrophic injury. This case involved a semi-truck driver who lost control of his vehicle in a high-traffic area, causing devastating injuries to our client. We were able to reconstruct every step of the events leading up to the crash that day to piece together why this happened, using sophisticated experts in reconstruction engineering.
Semi-truck and corporate negligence caused traumatic brain injury. Our client suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the defendant’s negligence in parking a commercial vehicle. The key to this case was understanding trucking regulations and local ordinances at play to show how the situation should have been handled safely.
Semi-truck causing wrongful death. This sad case involved the tragic death of our clients when a semi-driver was high on illegal substances. The key to this case was working closely with law enforcement and our reconstruction expert to identify all of the assets we could recover for these clients so that they could be as fully compensated as possible.