Home  ı  Article's Table of Contents

When does the clock begin ticking

We now know that if an employee is required to file a charge with the EEOC that an employee (other than a federal government employee) has either 180 days or 300 days to file. But a question just as important as knowing how long you have to file, is knowing when does the clock begin ticking on the 180 or 300 days.

Most courts hold that time begins running when the employee is informed of an adverse employment decision (termination, demotion, denial of promotion, etc.) -- not when the decision actually takes effect. For example, on June 1, 2002 you are told that you are being demoted effective September 1, 2002. You believe that the demotion is based on your gender. Most courts would hold that your time period (180 days or 300 days) begins to run on June 1.

Or if you are a federal government employee, your 45 days to contact an equal employment opportunity counselor begins on June 1.

Therefore, if you believe you have been a victim of discrimination, it is best to contact an attorney, the EEOC or your state or local agency as soon as possible.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, huh?

Courts sometimes dismiss an employee's lawsuit for "failure to exhaust administrative remedies." In plain English, this just means that the employee did not follow the requirements for filing an administrative charge with the EEOC.

Usually, one of the following reasons causes the court to decide that the employee did not exhaust his or her administrative remedies:

1. Even though the employee was required to file an administrative charge with the EEOC, no charge was ever filed. The employee just filed suit in federal court.

2. The employee filed an administrative charge with the EEOC, but did not file it on time.

3. The employee filed the administrative charge on time, but did not cooperate in the EEOC investigation.

4. The employee filed the administrative charge and cooperated in the EEOC investigation, but when she filed suit in federal court, she sued for a type of discrimination which was not mentioned in her EEOC charge.

Article's Table of Contents   ı   Previous Page   ı   Next Page