Employees Gain Legal Ground: US Supreme Court Authorizes Recovery for Untimely Discriminatory Acts

September 10, 2002

The US Supreme Court recently resolved a hotly contested legal issue that had spurred numerous conflicting viewpoints nationwide-whether an employee can recover damages for discriminatory/harassing acts that occurred outside of the statutory time limits for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII requires that discrimination charges be filed within 300 days after the discriminatory act or event occurred.

Some federal appellate courts that considered this issue held that employees could recover for incidents occurring outside of the 300-day period if the untimely incidents were part of a continuing pattern of harassing conduct and "sufficiently related" to acts occurring within the statutory window. This legal theory is known as the "continuing violation doctrine." The Supreme Court "split the baby" on this issue, holding that discrete discriminatory acts such as termination, failure to promote, demotion, suspension, refusal to hire and retaliation are easy to identify and "occur" on the day they happened. Accordingly, the employee must file their EEOC charge within 300 days of the occurrence or lose the ability to recover for it. Employees can, however, still utilize these prior, untimely acts as "background evidence" to bolster their timely claims.

The Court, however, much to many employers’ dismay, held that hostile-environment harassment claims are different because they are comprised of a series of separate, isolated acts that collectively constitute one "unlawful employment practice." Employers, accordingly, may be liable for all acts that are part of a pattern of harassing conduct. For a discrimination charge to be timely in this situation, the employee need only file a charge within 300 days of any one act that is part of the hostile work environment. If they do so, all preceding harassing events or incidents, regardless of their respective untimeliness, will "piggyback" onto the timely-filed charge and provide the employee legal grounds for recovery.

This decision is bad news for employers because it now means that events or incidents that were once legally untimely no longer are. Employees are now free to reach far back into their employment relationship and breath new legal life into stale events or incidents that occurred months or years before the employee's timely filed discrimination charge. Equally bad is the fact these "old" allegations very well may have arisen under a different supervisor's watch such that the employer no longer has access to that supervisor or other material fact witnesses needed to refute the charge.

The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Texas' “Baby Title VII,” is patterned after the federal discrimination statute and Texas Courts are, accordingly, required to apply Title VII case law precedent in state law cases. This spells more bad news for employers at the state court level because it means the Supreme Court's recent decision will carry over into state forums and, like in federal cases, revive untimely harassment allegations filed under the state's fair employment practices statute.

Firm Highlights


U.S. Supreme Court Settles Issue of Title VII Protections for LGBTQ+ Employees

Headshot of Stephanie Rojo

The 2020 HR Recap

We’ve made it to the recap episode! The good, the bad, the ugly, and everything in between. Join Kevin and Elaine (Lainey) Luthens as they discuss it all including FFCRA legislation, OSHA, what they...


The Importance of Strategic Transitions

Transitions versus change, what’s the destination and why is this important for a business?  Kevin talks with Gwen Gierke from Gierke Jungbauer on how they help to manage transitions. Transition happens in three stages: the ending, the neutral zone, and...


Supreme Court Reaffirms and Clarifies Ministerial Exception to Employment Discrimination Laws Under First Amendment’s Religion Clause


The COVID-19 Vaccine Part 1


The Tale of OCS and the Coronavirus

How has Opportunity Community Services survived during this pandemic and Phase 1? Rose Kukwa of Opportunity Community Services and Dennis Van Norman with Van Norman & Associates share their experience.  Rose and her team...

News Item

Thompson Coe Welcomes Partners Kenya Bodden and Patrick Kelly


COVID-19 Response Team - Resources and Updates


Thompson Coe Saves Client $100Ks in Damages After 3-Day Trial



Individual Coverage HRA. What is it? What are the benefits and drawbacks? What companies are a good fit for ICHRAs versus group health plans? Kevin talks with Matt Hollister, President and CEO of Business...