Expanding the Timer: Supreme Court Gives Employees More Time to File Claims

06 June 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: John L. Litchfield

They say that timing is everything — or at least now it is for so-called “constructive discharge” claims. Last month, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, solidified the rule that the time within which an employee can file such a claim against his or her employer starts with the employee’s resignation from employment, not the employer’s last alleged bad act.

“Constructive discharge” is a legal theory whereby an employee claims that the work environment was so toxic and discriminatory that he or she felt forced to resign. Constructive discharge can happen in virtually any workplace, and can be based on an individual’s protected characteristic (such as race, sex, religion, etc.) or his or her participation in protected activity (for example, whistleblowing).

In the recent Supreme Court case, the employee complained of race discrimination after he was passed over for a promotion at the U.S. Postal Service. After the Postal Service determined there was no basis for his complaint, the employee’s supervisors allegedly confronted him with allegations of poor management and intentional delay of mail service (a federal crime, the complaint alleges), and reassigned him to off-duty status with no pay.

On December 16, 2009 — a date to keep in mind — the Postal Service and the employee agreed that, to avoid bringing potential criminal charges, the employee would either accept a demotion and move to Wyoming (hundreds of miles from his then-current work location) or retire. In February 2010, the employee opted to retire at the end of March.

Six months after retiring, the employee sued the Postmaster General, alleging that the Postal Service’s demote-or-retire option amounted to a constructive discharge in retaliation for his prior discrimination complaint. The trial and lower appellate courts both agreed that the constructive discharge claim was time-barred because the December 2009 agreement triggered the start of the applicable filing period.

The Supreme Court disagreed however, reasoning that because an employee cannot sue for constructive discharge until he or she actually quits, the resignation itself is part of the “complete and present cause of action” that starts the filing clock. Clarifying its holding, the court further held that the filing clock starts at the time the employee gives notice of resignation, not the actual last day worked. This essentially expands the time within which employers face liability for underlying discrimination because it allows employees to bootstrap older discriminatory actions to their resignation.

Importantly for employers, keeping accurate written records of the exact date an employee gives notice of his or her resignation is key to effectively managing the employer’s period of potential exposure. The Supreme Court’s decision is also a good reminder for employers to manage employee relations and to conduct prompt and thorough investigations into internal complaints of discrimination or harassment.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services