On Monday, the US Supreme Court decided that an employer took too long to object that a complaint from the Equal Treatment Commission in the United States did not comply with a claim in court proceedings that were later received.
The Court's unanimous judgment in Fort Bend County v. Lois M. Davis the case concerns the issue of workers applying for grievance under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must first file a complaint to the EEOC . When the agency receives the complaint, it either has the target itself or gives the employee the right to sue.
The procedural provision reminds employers to immediately check whether disputes filed under Title VII of the 1
In 2010, Lois Davis, who worked in Information Technology for Richmond, informed Texas-based Fort Bend County, the County's Human Resources Department that her director sexually harassed her.  After an investigation, the director resigned, but Mrs David's superiors began to claim that she had reported harassment by limiting her work responsibilities.
Ms. Davis filed a fee with EEOC in March 2011. While the fee was in progress, Mrs Davis told him he would report to work on a coming Sunday.
She told the manager that she had a church engagement that day and offered to arrange another employee to replace her at work. The supervisor answered if she did not come up for Sunday work, she would finish. Davis went to church and was fired.
In an attempt to supplement the allegations in her accusation, Mrs Davis "religion" acted on the "Employment Harms or Actions" part of her EEOC questionnaire but made no change in the formal fee document. A few months later, Mrs Davis was informed of her right to sue. She raised complaints in U.S. District Court in Houston, which gave rise to retaliation and religious-based discrimination.
The US District Judge in Houston granted the County Draft Assessment and rejected the case on both charges. On appeal, the 5th Circuit US Appeal Court in New Orleans confirmed the cancellation claim, but restored Ms David's religious-based discrimination claim, according to the ruling. Fort Bend sought a hearing in the case before the Supreme Court, which was denied.
On maturity at a point that was "years in the dispute", Fort Bend claimed for the first time that the district court had no jurisdiction to judge Mrs Davis "religious discrimination claims" because she had not provided such a claim in her EEOC fee ", said The Court of Appeal granted the county's dismissal of the case.
The fifth circle reversed this judgment, stating that this was not a jurisdiction issue, which is "indivisible." It said the requirement that Miss Davis should report the religious discrimination claim in her EEOC complaint was a "prerequisite for fitting" that the county forfeited for not raising it until after "a whole round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court," said the verdict citing the 5th circle.
Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case due to a conflict between the courts in the appeal on this issue. The Court of Justice has "stressed the distinction between jurisdictional and non-legal claims processing claims, which" seek to promote orderly progress in litigation by requiring the parties to take certain procedural steps in certain specific matters, "said the court, quoting in An earlier case. "
" But an objection based on a mandatory claim processing rule can be forfeited "if the party invoking the rule waits too long to raise the score," the court said, referring to a previous case.
This was the case here, the Court of Appeal held an opinion of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Title VII's Disclaimer Requirements is a processing rule, albeit mandatory, not a jurisdiction prescription that defines the jurisdiction of the Court," it said in maintaining the 5th judgment.
Ms. Davis lawyer, R. Russell Hollenbeck, a partner with Wright Close & Barger LLP in Houston, said: "We are obviously very pleased with it and we are grateful for this important decision, which guarantees a fairer system for all victims of labor discrimination It clarifies this important process for employers and governments as well as employees. "
Mr. Hollenbeck said that the case will be invoked to the district court for trial against the benefits of the requirement of religious discrimination.
The county lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
Discuss the ruling Paul E. Goatley, an associate with the Fisher & Phillips LLP in Louisville, Kentucky, who was not involved in the matter, saying that its "practical impact hasn't really moved the needle so much."
Basically, he said it requires employers to be sued by employees to compare the claims of the trial with the requirements of the employee's EEOC complaint – which they should do anyway – and move to reject the case if there is any difference between the two. This must happen at the beginning of the case, he said. The government is "pretty simple," Goatley said.