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
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- IRS
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Arbitration
- Retirement
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- NLRA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Accommodation
- Litigation
- Race Discrimination
- Social Media
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- Wage & Hour
- 401(k)
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Title VII
- ADAAA
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Workplace Accommodations
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Technology
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Privacy
- Securities Law
- FMLA
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Sixth Circuit
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- OSHA
- Religion Discrimination
- Overtime Pay
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Representative Election Regulations
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Department of Justice
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- 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
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Social Media Content
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Termination Done Right - Part 2
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Update - COVID-19 Issues
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Update Week of 3/1/21
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Termination Done Right - Part 1
- 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