United States: District Court Rejects Untimely Claims In Pattern Or Practice Lawsuit

Last Updated: May 27 2011
Article by Peter J. Petesch and Amy Ryder Wentz

A federal district judge in Ohio delivered another blow to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's or "Commission's") persistent efforts to seek relief under Title VII for individuals participating as "class" claimants in pattern or practice suits brought by the EEOC, but claiming to be aggrieved more than 300 days before the filing of the administrative charge triggering the EEOC's investigation. Specifically, the court in EEOC v. Kaplan HigherEducation Corp. held that the plain language of the statute does not carve out an exception for the EEOC to bring untimely claims.1

Section 706 of Title VII gives the EEOC authority to sue on behalf of one or more persons aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory employment practice where the individual filed a charge with the Commission within 300 days after the alleged act.2 Likewise, section 707 allows the Commission to investigate and act on cases involving a pattern or practice of discrimination in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 706.3 The argument favoring imposing the limitations set forth in section 706 for pattern or practice claims brought by the EEOC is as follows: absent a clear expression by Congress, there is no reason for providing the EEOC a free pass from Congress's policy favoring the filing of prompt charges and notifying employers of investigations. The unappealing alternative, posited by the EEOC in its pattern or practice matters, is to free the agency from any time limits. Although the language of the law makes clear that the 300-day requirement also applies to the section 707 pattern or practice claims, the EEOC has made numerous attempts – with mixed results – to escape this limitation on the basis that such a requirement is contrary to Congress's intent for the EEOC to remedy systemic discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC has argued that it does not proceed as a representative of either the individual who filed the initial charge or for any others for whom it seeks relief; rather, it proceeds primarily in the public interest. Alternatively, the EEOC argues that when it succeeds in proving an unlawful pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination, all unlawful acts that stem from that pattern or practice are actionable regardless of whether such acts occurred before the 300-day charge filing limitation.

The district court in Kaplan, following an emerging line of decisions by courts in other districts, rejected both of these arguments, reasoning that the plain language of the statute makes clear that Congress intended discrimination claims to be resolved promptly. This ruling thwarted the EEOC's attempt to resurrect stale and untimely claims by limiting the scope of the lawsuit to those employment decisions made within 300 days of the charge that triggered the EEOC's investigation and lawsuit.

Title VII's Charge Filing Period for EEOC Lawsuits

While employers tend to be most familiar with discrimination claims brought by an individual employee (or former employee), Title VII also authorizes the EEOC to bring Title VII claims in its own name on behalf of one or more employees who claim to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice, as was the case in Kaplan. The EEOC has increased its emphasis on these higher-impact claims over the years. These particular claims are still subject to administrative prerequisites – namely that someone files a discrimination charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act (such as a failure to hire or a termination); that the EEOC investigate the charge and make a reasonable cause determination; and that the EEOC first attempt to resolve the claim through conciliation before initiating a civil action.4

Federal Courts Reject the Notion that the EEOC Can Bring Claims Occurring Before the 300-day Filing Requirement

At issue in Kaplan and other lawsuits brought by the EEOC is whether the 300-day filing requirement expressed in section 706 applies to pattern or practice claims also brought under section 707. The EEOC asserts that the 300-day requirement does not come into play in its pattern or practice lawsuits, and that any act resulting from the pattern or practice is actionable under section 707 regardless of the time restriction. In other words, the EEOC relies on section 707 to broaden its "class" of claimants to individuals who may have been aggrieved long before the 300-day filing deadline.

For example, in Kaplan, the EEOC alleges that the defendant engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of race discrimination by relying on credit histories to make hiring and other employment decisions, asserting that the practice has a disparate impact on black job applicants and employees. Such allegations were first made known to the EEOC by a former Kaplan employee who alleged she was terminated on February 15, 2009, on the basis of her credit history report. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within a couple weeks of her discharge, and the EEOC filed its complaint in federal court in December 2010, asserting unlawful discrimination dating as far back as January 2008.

Finding the plain language of the law controlling, the district judge in Kaplan narrowed the "class" of potential claims by barring as untimely those claimants who may have been affected more than 300 days before the operative charge giving rise to the lawsuit. Indeed, the court agreed with another recent decision in the District of Maryland in explaining that "had Congress intended to allow the EEOC to resurrect the stale claims of individuals who did not timely file charges, it would have expressly so stated."5 Other courts have even opined that this 300-day time limit should begin to run for claims arising within 300 days of the employer first being made aware of a broader EEOC investigation into possible "class" or pattern or practice claims, and not necessarily from the earlier date that an individual charge was filed (i.e., if a pattern or practice of discrimination, or an alleged discriminatory policy was not asserted in the original charge).6

In the Kaplan case and in other cases involving older "class" claims, the EEOC relied on the policy argument that, given its enforcement mission and power to bring pattern or practice claims, Congress did not intend to limit the EEOC's ability to reach back beyond the charge filing limit to attempt to remedy alleged instances of discrimination. Some district courts have sided with the EEOC on this question,7 and no U.S. Court of Appeals has decided the issue. For this reason, given the EEOC's emphasis on bringing the more sweeping pattern or practice claims on behalf of larger "classes" of claimants, the EEOC can be expected to continue asserting that it has no time restrictions in recruiting and proceeding on behalf "class" members similarly affected by the challenged pattern or practice.

"Pattern Or Practice" Is Different from "Continuing Violation"

In furtherance of its efforts to side-step the statutory time limitations, the EEOC has argued in the alternative that its pattern or practice lawsuits fit within the exceptions provided by the "continuing violations" doctrine. The continuing violations doctrine allows courts to consider the cumulative effect of individual acts that, on their own, do not amount to actionable discrimination, but considered as a whole may give rise to unlawful discrimination, such as a hostile work environment. In such a case, the Supreme Court holds that so long as an act contributing to the claim occurred within the 300-day period, the court may consider component acts that gave rise to the hostile work environment that occurred outside the statutory period.

By contrast, discrete acts – such as failure to hire, failure to promote, or a termination – are barred as untimely if they are not raised in a discrimination charge within 300 days.

The EEOC has attempted to blur the line between pattern or practice claims and the continuing violations doctrine, but Kaplan and other courts have rejected such efforts. Specifically, courts distinguish between "component acts," which cumulatively may amount to a discriminatory claim, such as a hostile work environment, and "discrete acts" which, on their own, may amount to adverse action. The former are actionable if at least one of the acts occurred within the 300-day statutory period, whereas the later are time-barred if not timely filed. In short, "[t]he 'pattern or practice' alleged should not be used to allow the EEOC to seek relief on behalf of otherwise time-barred parties when the challenged practice involves discrete acts of discrimination."8

What Does this Mean for Employers?

Although sections 706 and 707 empower the EEOC to investigate and litigate pattern or practice claims, the Kaplan ruling joins a growing number of other district courts in limiting how far back the Commission can assemble its "class" of aggrieved individuals. Although the EEOC may continue to argue in favor of being allowed to side-step Title VII's time restrictions, the most recent opinions are spoiling these efforts.

With such limitations in place, the EEOC remains able to litigate pattern or practice claims and challenge practices that the Commission believes are discriminatory, but the Commission is simply prevented from resurrecting stale claims and, importantly, is limited in its ability to expand the number of claimants in litigation and extract larger settlements under the threat of larger "classes." Already, the pendency of similar timeliness motions in other EEOC pattern or practice cases may have helped leverage less onerous settlements for employers. Moreover, employment litigation can be daunting when employers are forced to locate witnesses with fading memories or who may no longer work for the company – a reality of "class" litigation that grows exponentially more difficult for older claims, particularly in industries with higher employee turnover. Even with the limitations associated with applying the 300-day rule to the EEOC, employers in these "class" cases often encounter difficulty finding witnesses with clear recollections of events surrounding newly identified claimants, because actual litigation brought by the EEOC, and identification of all claimants, often occurs years after the filing of the initial charge. The emerging trend of district court rulings like Kaplan can nonetheless provide some relief to employers by placing limited restraints on the EEOC with respect to claims not promptly pursued.

Footnotes

1 No. 10 CV 2882 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2011).

2 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). If a jurisdiction does not have its own enforcement agency, then the charge-filing requirement is 180 days.

3 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(e).

4 42 U.S.C. 2000-e5.

5 Kaplan (citing EEOC v. Freeman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41336 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2010); see also EEOC v. Bloomberg, L.P., No. 07 CV 8383 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2010); EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 867 (N.D. Iowa 2009); EEOC v. Burlington Med. Supplies, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 647 (E.D. Va. 2008); EEOC v. Custom Cos., Inc., Nos. 02 CV 3768 and 03 CV 2293 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2004); EEOC v. Optical Cable Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 539 (W.D. Va. 2001).

6 EEOC v. Freeman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8718 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2011); EEOC v. Optical Cable Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 539 (W.D. Va. 2001).

7 See EEOC v. LA Weight Loss, 509 F. Supp. 2d 527 (D. Md. 2007); EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122102 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).

8 Kaplan (quoting EEOC v. Bloomberg, L.P. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2010)).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions