Fort Bend County v. Davis
139 S. Ct. 1843, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3891, 204 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's requirement that a plaintiff must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before commencing a lawsuit is a mandatory, but non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule. As such, the requirement is subject to forfeiture if the defendant fails to raise the issue in a timely manner.
Facts:
- Lois M. Davis was an employee of Fort Bend County, Texas.
- In 2010, Davis reported to human resources that the director of her department was sexually harassing her.
- After the director resigned, Davis alleged that her new supervisor began retaliating against her for making the report.
- In March 2011, Davis filed a formal charge with the EEOC, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation.
- While this charge was pending, Fort Bend fired Davis after she failed to report for a Sunday work shift, having informed her supervisor she had a church commitment.
- Following her termination, Davis attempted to supplement her EEOC claim by handwriting "religion" on an intake questionnaire but did not formally amend her official charge document to include a claim of religious discrimination.
Procedural Posture:
- Lois M. Davis sued Fort Bend County in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for religious discrimination and retaliation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Fort Bend County.
- Davis, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim but reversed and remanded the religious discrimination claim.
- After the case returned to the District Court, Fort Bend County moved to dismiss, arguing for the first time that the court lacked jurisdiction because Davis's EEOC charge did not include a religious discrimination claim.
- The District Court granted the motion, holding the charge-filing requirement was jurisdictional and thus nonforfeitable.
- Davis appealed again to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed, holding the requirement was a prudential prerequisite to suit that Fort Bend had forfeited through its delay.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Fort Bend County's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Title VII's requirement that an employee file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a lawsuit a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit that can be raised at any stage of litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. Title VII's charge-filing requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Court has clarified that the term 'jurisdictional' should be reserved for rules that delineate a court's power to hear a case (subject-matter jurisdiction) or exercise authority over a person (personal jurisdiction). Claim-processing rules, by contrast, are procedural steps that are mandatory if timely raised but are forfeited if a party waits too long to assert them. Title VII's charge-filing instructions are located in statutory provisions separate from those that grant federal courts jurisdiction over Title VII actions. They speak to a party's procedural obligations, not the court's adjudicatory authority. Because Congress did not clearly state that the charge-filing rule is jurisdictional, it must be treated as a non-jurisdictional rule that is waivable.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision solidifies the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence narrowing the scope of what constitutes a 'jurisdictional' rule. By classifying Title VII's charge-filing requirement as a waivable claim-processing rule, the Court prevents defendants from using it as a strategic tool to dismiss lawsuits late in the litigation process after substantial resources have been expended. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural preconditions to suit are not jurisdictional unless Congress explicitly designates them as such, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and providing more certainty for litigants. The decision places a clear burden on defendants to promptly challenge any defects in a plaintiff's administrative exhaustion process or risk forfeiting the defense.
Unlock the full brief for Fort Bend County v. Davis