Fort Bend County v. Davis

Background

Lois M. Davis, an information-technology worker, reported sexual harassment at her county workplace and later alleges she was fired after missing work for a church event. She submitted an intake questionnaire and a formal EEOC charge, handwriting “religion” on the questionnaire but not amending the formal charge. After receiving a right-to-sue notice, Davis sued the county for religion-based discrimination and retaliation. Years into the litigation, the county argued the court lacked power because Davis had not raised religion in the formal EEOC charge, and a District Court dismissed the religion claim as jurisdictionally barred. The Fifth Circuit reversed.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the rule that a worker must file an EEOC charge before suing is a limit on a court’s power (“jurisdictional”) or a procedural step that a party must raise on time. The Court explained that “jurisdictional” describes rules that define the kinds of cases a court may hear. It held the EEOC charge rule is a procedural claim-processing requirement, not a jurisdictional limit, because the charge instructions sit in different parts of the law than the provisions that give federal courts authority. The Court said such procedural rules can be mandatory but are normally forfeited if not timely asserted, and noted the decision was unanimous.

Real world impact

Going forward, employers must raise EEOC-charge objections promptly or lose them. Workers whose formal charge wording was imperfect may still proceed when employers delay the objection. This ruling addresses procedural access to court, not the merits of discrimination claims.