Hundreds of hours may be spent by human
resource professionals and managers of a company toward
designing and implementing a reorganization and
reduction-in-force. Similarly, hundreds of hours may be
spent by company representatives investigating and resolving
an internal claim of sexual harassment. In these
instances, as well as with making the myriad of agonizing
decisions which adversely affect the employment status of
workers, consultation with legal advisors often occur to
assess and attempt to avoid legal liability as a result of
these decisions.
After the agonizing decisions are implemented and employment
status is adversely affected for some or many employees, the
liability time clock ticks with the passing days, months or
years before the company learns whether any legal claims in
challenge of the employment decisions are filed against the
company. This article provides an outline of the time
limitations for the most common employment law claims.
Federal Discrimination Claims
Many of the claims filed as a result of a
reduction-in- force are filed under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. The ADEA requires the filing of a
complaint with the administrative agency, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, within 300 days of the alleged
unlawful discrimination. This is true for deferral
states, such as Idaho which has a recognized Section 706
agency, the Idaho Human Rights Commission. For states which do
not have a recognized deferral agency, the time requirement is
180 days after the date of the last alleged unlawful act of
discrimination. The same statute of limitations for ADEA
claims applies to claims filed under Title VII, and most
likely to claims filed under the Americans With Disabilities
Act. Subsequent to the 1991 amendments to Title VII, or the
1991 Civil Rights Act, the two and three year statutes of
limitations for the ADEA, incorporated through the Fair Labor
Standards Act, essentially were dropped. This leads to
the conclusion that, once a claim is timely filed with the
EEOC, the EEOC may retain jurisdiction for an arguably
indefinite period of time. The claimant's time limit
within which to file a federal lawsuit then becomes 90 days
after a right to sue letter is issued by the EEOC. This may
occur before the EEOC concludes its investigation and
determination (in the event the employee requests withdrawal
of the charge) or after a determination and period of
conciliation, if necessary.
"Piggybacking" is one way to
potentially avoid or circumscribe the 300 day filing
requirement under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA. The
piggyback concept allows joinder of an existing lawsuit or
initiation of a separate lawsuit by an otherwise untimely
claimant upon two conditions: (1) the EEOC charge being
relied upon is timely and not otherwise defective; and (2) the
individual claims of the filing and non-filing (or untimely
filed) plaintiff must have arisen out of "similar
discriminatory treatment in the same time frame."
See Jackson v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 678 F.2d 992 (11th
Cir. 1982); Calloway v. Partners National Health Plans, et
al., 986 F.2d 446, 449 (11th Cir. 1993). Similarly,
there are piggybacking or single filing rules which allow
employees to timely join class actions which otherwise were
timely filed by single or multiple individuals.
Typically, however, the 90-day right to sue period is not
tolled, except for situations involving class actions.
State Discrimination Claims
The statute of limitations for state law
discrimination claims differs from the 300-day EEOC
requirement. Under the Idaho Human Rights Act, the time
limits for filing depend upon whether the employee first files
a claim with the Idaho Human Rights Commission and also
whether the Commission retains the complaint for full
processing. The Idaho Human Rights Act, specifically,
Idaho Code § 67-5908(4), requires a complaint to be filed
with the agency within one year from the date of the alleged
unlawful discrimination. Obviously, this is a longer
time frame than Title VII and the 300-day EEOC filing
requirement. Further, the Idaho Human Rights Commission has
one year from the date a complaint is filed with the agency
within which to file suit on behalf of the complainant and/or
the Commission in the event a reasonable cause of
determination is issued and conciliation is not
successful. If an administrative complaint is not filed,
or if one is filed with the Idaho Human Rights Commission but
withdrawn before determination, an employee has two years
after the date of the alleged unlawful discrimination
complained of within which to file a state private cause of
action. Therefore, the employer may have no notice of or
reason to believe a state lawsuit may be filed until two years
after the termination of employment, or for example, a
reduction-in-force.
Wage Claims
Claims for overtime or other violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act typically must be filed within two
years from the date of the alleged violation, or three years
from the date of the alleged "willful"
violation. In contrast, Idaho's wage claim statute has a
two-tier approach to claims for unpaid wages or other
compensation. Idaho Code § 45-614 states that claims
must be filed within two years, or within six months if,
although compensated, the employee is claiming that the
compensation received was not the full amount due. In
other words, an employer who does not pay anything to an
employee on a date when the alleged compensation is
"due" may not be faced with a legal claim until two
years after the alleged due date. In contrast, if some
but not all of the compensation is paid when "due,"
the employer should learn about the claim within six months.
Wrongful Discharge Claims
The time requirement for filing state claims
for wrongful discharge depend upon the nature of the claims
stated. Idaho remains an employment-at-will state,
although common law exceptions have been engrafted under
limited circumstances. Implied contract or implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims arise out of
the application of contract law theories. Therefore, the
four year statute of limitations for oral contracts (Idaho
Code § 5-217) and the five year statute of limitations for
written contracts (Idaho Code § 5-216) probably apply to
claims of this nature.
In contrast, the alleged "tort" of
wrongful discharge, or termination in violation of public
policy, should be subject to a two year statute of limitations
under the personal injury statute of limitations in Idaho Code
§ 5-219(4). Similarly, tort claims for defamation,
assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress or other claims that frequently appear appended to
the variety of discrimination allegations, also should be
filed within two years of the date of the alleged unlawful
conduct or omission.
ERISA
Finally, claims for breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, may
be filed against an employer within three years of actual
knowledge of the breach or up to six years after the alleged
violation of that federal law. (29 U.S.C. § 1113(a)(1)
and (a)(2).) Other causes of action under ERISA, such as
alleged intentional interference with vesting, may be held to
a shorter limitation period, often comparable to that
applicable for the state law claim parallel to the nature of
the alleged ERISA violation.
Certain circumstances, such as fraud or other
events giving rise to estoppel, may lengthen the statute of
limitations for a variety of the above categorized
claims. In any event, the above outline illustrates that
the time clock for lawsuits for employment-related actions may
tick for several months or years before an employer realizes
an employment decision is being challenged and corporate
efforts and legal fees must be dedicated to defend against the
legal challenge. Awareness of the statutes of
limitations helps when appreciating the need for sound record
retention policies and when, for consistency and continuity
purposes, keeping in mind past employment decisions even while
moving the company forward.
* Condensed version of a feature article from
the December 1996 Idaho Labor Letter, reprinted with
permission of the Idaho Labor Letter. A complete copy of
the article may be obtained from Hall, Farley, Oberrecht &
Blanton, P.A. or The Idaho Labor Letter (1-800-767-3710).
