Court strikes down employer tactic to limit discrimination claims

When EOTech fired Thomas in November 2022, she did what federal law instructs employees to do. She filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, waited for the agency to complete its process, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed her lawsuit within 90 days – precisely on time under federal statute. EOTech’s response was to argue that Thomas had already run out the clock under the 180-day agreement she signed at hiring. A lower court agreed and threw out her case entirely. 

The appeals court disagreed, and its reasoning is important for anyone who manages employment agreements. 

Federal anti-discrimination law – specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – does not work like a simple countdown clock. Congress built a two-step process: employees first go to the EEOC, and only after that can they file a private lawsuit. Those two steps together give workers at least 270 days under federal law. EOTech’s agreement, while it paused the clock during the EEOC process, still capped the total time available for both steps at 180 days. The court found that no matter how the math is arranged, the agreement always ended up cutting into time that Congress specifically set aside for workers to pursue their claims. 

The court also pushed back on EOTech’s suggestion that employees should simply hire a lawyer and get a lawsuit ready while the EEOC is still doing its job. That, the court said, misses the entire point. The EEOC process exists precisely to resolve disputes without going to court. Telling workers to lawyer up in parallel defeats that purpose entirely. 

There was also a practical concern that ran through the opinion. Many employees navigating the EEOC process have no legal representation. They rely on publicly available information – the statute, the EEOC website – which tells them they have 90 days to sue after receiving a right-to-sue letter. If employers can override that through a clause in an employment document signed at the start of a job, the system becomes difficult to navigate for the very people it was designed to protect.