Stevens v. Department of Treasury

1991-04-24

Headline: Federal employee age-discrimination suit allowed to proceed after Court corrects lower courts’ misreading of ADEA notice and timing rules, reverses the appeals court, and sends the case back for further proceedings.

Holding: The Court held that the ADEA requires a notice filed within 180 days and at least 30 days’ notice before suit, Stevens met those timing rules, so the lower courts’ dismissals were incorrect and the case is reversed and remanded.

Real World Impact:

Clarifies ADEA notice timing for federal employees.
Reverses lower courts and sends the case back for merits.
Leaves unresolved whether administrative exhaustion is required.

Topics: age discrimination, federal employees, EEOC notice rules, administrative exhaustion

Summary

Background

Charles Stevens, a 63-year-old IRS employee in a training program, was told his performance was unsatisfactory on April 27, 1987. Believing he was demoted because of his age, he sought help from a Congressman, later contacted an EEOC counselor (too late under agency rules), and filed an administrative complaint on October 19, 1987 that included a statement of intent to sue. The agency rejected the complaint as untimely, the dismissal was affirmed on appeal, and Stevens sued in federal court on May 3, 1988. Lower courts dismissed the suit for procedural timeliness errors.

Reasoning

The Court examined the ADEA’s timing rules and concluded the lower courts misread the statute. The law requires filing a notice with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice and giving the EEOC at least 30 days’ notice of an intent to sue before a civil action is filed. Stevens’ October 19, 1987 notice came within 180 days (the 176th day) and his federal suit was filed well more than 30 days later, so the timing requirements were satisfied. The Court found no basis to say the suit was time-barred and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

The decision clears a procedural obstacle for federal employees bringing age-discrimination claims by clarifying notice and timing requirements under the ADEA. The Court did not resolve a related split among appeals courts about whether an employee who seeks agency review must exhaust administrative remedies before suing; instead the case was remanded for further proceedings so Stevens can pursue the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the Court should have decided the exhaustion question and that the ADEA does not require federal employees to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.