United States v. Morgan (Morgan IV)
536 U.S. 101 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts are only actionable if a charge is filed within the statutory time period for that specific act. However, for a hostile work environment claim, the entire period of the hostile environment may be considered for liability, so long as at least one act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period.
Facts:
- Abner Morgan, Jr., a Black male, was hired by National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in August 1990.
- Throughout his employment, Morgan alleged he was subjected to racially discriminatory and retaliatory actions and a hostile work environment.
- Specific alleged discriminatory acts included being hired as an electrician helper instead of an electrician, termination for refusing orders, denial of participation in an apprenticeship program, and numerous written counselings.
- Morgan also alleged that managers used racial epithets against him and made negative comments about the capacity of Black employees.
- Within the 300 days prior to filing his EEOC charge, Morgan alleged he was wrongfully suspended, denied training, and falsely accused of threatening a manager.
- Morgan's employment with Amtrak was terminated on March 3, 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 27, 1995, Abner Morgan, Jr. filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation against Amtrak with the EEOC.
- After the EEOC issued a 'Notice of Right to Sue,' Morgan filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- Amtrak moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable for incidents occurring more than 300 days before Morgan's EEOC charge.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment to Amtrak, barring claims for acts that occurred outside the 300-day filing period.
- Morgan, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, applying its 'continuing violation doctrine' to allow consideration of the time-barred acts.
- Amtrak, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Title VII's requirement that a charge be filed within 180 or 300 days after an 'unlawful employment practice occurred,' are discriminatory acts that fall outside this period actionable if they are related to acts that fall within the period, for (1) discrete discriminatory acts, and (2) hostile work environment claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, for discrete discriminatory acts, but yes, for hostile work environment claims. Each discrete discriminatory act is a separate 'unlawful employment practice' that triggers its own filing deadline; acts for which the deadline has passed are not revived by being related to a timely-filed act. A hostile work environment, however, is a single unlawful practice, and the claim is timely if any contributing act occurs within the filing period, allowing the court to consider the entire scope of the hostile environment for purposes of liability. The Court reasoned that the statutory text of Title VII treats 'unlawful employment practices' differently based on their nature. Discrete acts, such as termination, failure to promote, or refusal to hire, are easy to identify and 'occur' on a specific day. Citing precedents like United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans and Delaware State College v. Ricks, the Court affirmed that each discrete act starts a new clock, and untimely filed acts can only be used as background evidence, not as a basis for liability. In contrast, a hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one 'unlawful employment practice.' Because the harm is cumulative and occurs over a series of days or years, the Court held it should be treated as a single, ongoing violation. Therefore, as long as one component act of the hostile environment falls within the statutory period, the entire claim is timely, and the employer may be held liable for all related acts, including those outside the time period.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice O'Connor
No. While the majority is correct that discrete discriminatory acts are time-barred if not filed within the statutory period, the same limitation should apply to hostile work environment claims, precluding liability for conduct that occurred outside the charge-filing period. Justice O'Connor argued that the statutory text of § 2000e-5(e)(1) does not distinguish between types of claims. Treating a hostile environment as a single, indivisible violation allows plaintiffs to 'sleep on their rights' for years, reviving stale claims and prejudicing employers who must defend against remote actions where evidence is lost and memories have faded. Instead, each day an employee is exposed to a hostile environment could be treated as a separate 'occurrence,' some of which may be time-barred. This approach aligns with the treatment of ongoing violations in other legal contexts, like antitrust and RICO, which do not permit a recent act to 'bootstrap' recovery for older, time-barred injuries.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shaped Title VII litigation by creating a dual framework for timeliness. It explicitly rejected the broad application of the 'continuing violation doctrine' to discrete discriminatory acts, enforcing strict filing deadlines for each separate incident and promoting prompt reporting. Conversely, for hostile work environment claims, the Court's ruling provided a more plaintiff-friendly standard, recognizing the cumulative and ongoing nature of such harassment. This distinction requires courts and litigants to carefully categorize alleged discriminatory conduct, as the timeliness of a claim—and the scope of potential liability—hinges on whether the conduct is a series of discrete acts or part of a single, continuous hostile environment.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Morgan (Morgan IV)