Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis

Background

Lois M. Davis, an information-technology employee at a county government, reported sexual harassment and later said she was retaliated against and fired after missing work for church. She submitted an intake questionnaire in February 2011 and filed a formal EEOC charge in March 2011; she handwritten "religion" on the intake but did not add religion to the formal charge. After receiving a right-to-sue notice, she sued in federal court alleging religious discrimination and retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment for the county; on appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed as to the religion claim and held the EEOC charge rule was not jurisdictional. The county asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Title VII’s requirement to file an EEOC charge is a jurisdictional limit on courts or a procedural step that can be forfeited. Relying on prior decisions, the Court explained that "jurisdictional" typically describes the kinds of cases courts may hear and the people over whom courts may exercise authority. It found that Title VII’s charge-filing provisions do not speak to a court’s authority but instead set a procedural obligation for complainants. The Court therefore treated the charge-filing rule as a mandatory claim-processing requirement that defendants must raise in a timely way, and not as an unfailing jurisdictional bar.

Real world impact

Because the rule is nonjurisdictional, employers who fail to object promptly can forfeit the defense and leave discrimination claims to proceed. The decision resolves a split among appeals courts and clarifies that plaintiffs’ access to federal court will not be defeated by late-raised charge objections. The Court noted Congress could clearly make such a rule jurisdictional if it chose to do so.