In a story widely reported in the news last year, the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a nationwide provider of postsecondary education, alleging that it engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide. The suit was based on the allegation that since at least 2008, Kaplan had rejected job applicants based on their credit history and that the practice had an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race. One issue that arose in the case was the proper scope of the class of claimants in pattern or practice suits brought by the EEOC. Specifically, whether individuals claiming to aggrieved more than 300 days before the filing of the charge that triggered the EEOC’s investigation could be included in the class. This week, the Court answered that question in the negative, holding that the plain language of Title VII does not carve out an exception for the EEOC to bring untimely claims.
Littler has done a thorough analysis of the case that is well worth reading. They note that:
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." 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).
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, 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.
I agree that the EEOC will continue to try to push the envelope in pattern and practice cases but this decision is good news for employers, particularly in conjunction with other courts’ recent willingness to sanction the EEOC for overreaching.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- IRS
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- NLRA
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- 401(k)
- Wage & Hour
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Title VII
- Workplace Accommodations
- ADAAA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Securities Law
- Technology
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Disability
- Health Savings Account
- Workplace Violence
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Representative Election Regulations
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Department of Justice
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Coronavirus
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave
- Ohio Passes COVID Immunity Law - Employers Beware