Employers may not use private agreements with employees to shorten the statutory filing periods for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In Thomas v. EOTech, LLC, the court aligned with Sixth Circuit jurisprudence in holding that judicial enforcement of such agreements would “disrupt the relevant statutes’ carefully integrated and uniform remedial schemes.” For employers with provisions in employment agreements shortening the statutes of limitations for such claims, this decision is a warning to review those documents and reassess the risk of litigation.

Quick Hits

• Agreements that prospectively shorten the statutory filing periods for Title VII or ADEA claims are unenforceable.
• According to the Fourth Circuit, such agreements disrupt the balance of competing interests under Title VII and the ADEA, including society’s interest in preventing and redressing discrimination, employers’ interest in avoiding stale claims, and Congressional interest in a uniform and nationwide enforcement system.
• Maryland law may permit contractual shortening of limitations periods; however, such agreements may turn on whether they are reasonable.

Legal Framework

Under both Title VII and ADEA, an employee who believes his or her rights have been violated cannot simply file a lawsuit. Instead, Congress created an “intricate remedial scheme” requiring employees...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiigFBVV95cUxOX2dTMmQxMGFENWRmeHJlUjdI...