My Photo

Firing at Will

  • Check out Jay's new book on the riskiest thing you can do at work with your clothes on.

Follow jayshep on Twitter

Become a Fan

« Put your employees first and your customers second | Main | Making it in Massachusetts? Merit increases up slightly »


Evil HR Lady

Excellent points. How would they have ruled if Lebetter had claimed to not have known until later? Would the 180 day requirement start on the day of notification?

Jay Shepherd

Good question, Evil One. I would say "yes," but the Court intentionally sidesteps the issue in the decision, pointing out that they have so far avoided applying a "discovery" rule to Title VII. The Court cites to a footnote in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, which says: "There may be circumstances where it will be difficult to determine when the time period should begin to run. One issue that may arise in such circumstances is whether the time begins to run when the injury occurs as opposed to when the injury reasonably should have been discovered. But this case presents no occasion to resolve that issue." As an employer-side lawyer, I would argue that the clock starts ticking when the act occurs. But a court might go with when the employee discovered it.

The comments to this entry are closed.