Summary
The Supreme Court held that Title VII’s requirement that a complainant first file a charge with the EEOC is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Because the requirement is nonjurisdictional, an employer may forfeit an objection by failing to raise it promptly. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in favor of Lois M. Davis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Title VII's requirement that a complainant file a charge with the EEOC before commencing a civil action is jurisdictional and therefore may be raised at any stage of litigation.
- Whether the Title VII charge-filing requirement is a mandatory, nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture when not timely asserted.
Holdings
- Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional. It is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule that must be enforced if timely raised but may be forfeited if the defendant waits too long to assert it.
Key quotations
“We hold that Title VII’s charge-filing instruction is not jurisdictional, a term generally reserved to describe the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction) or the persons over whom a court may exercise adjudicatory authority (personal jurisdiction).” (139 S. Ct. 1843, 1845)
“If the Legislature clearly states that a [prescription] count[s] as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue[;] [b]ut when Congress does not rank a [prescription] as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.” (139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849)
“In sum, a rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title VII’s charge-filing requirement fits that bill.” (139 S. Ct. 1843, 1852)
Factual background
Lois M. Davis, an information-technology employee of Fort Bend County, reported that a supervisor sexually harassed her. After the supervisor resigned, Davis alleged that another supervisor retaliated against her, and Fort Bend later fired her after she attended a church event instead of reporting for scheduled Sunday work. Davis attempted to add religion to an EEOC intake questionnaire but did not amend her formal charge, then sued alleging religion discrimination and retaliation.
Procedural history
Davis filed an EEOC charge alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, later attempted to add a religion-based discrimination claim, and sued in the Southern District of Texas after receiving a right-to-sue notice. The district court granted Fort Bend summary judgment on the original claims and later dismissed the religion-discrimination claim for failure to satisfy the EEOC charge-filing requirement, treating that requirement as jurisdictional. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the requirement was nonjurisdictional and forfeited because Fort Bend raised it only after extensive litigation. The Supreme Court affirmed.