The various state anti-discrimination laws play an important role in any personnel director’s or defense lawyer’s life. Coverage under those laws can differ substantially from federal anti-discrimination laws. Connecticut’s Human Rights and Opportunities Act, for example, covers both marital status and sexual orientation, neither of which are covered under Title VII. Also, Connecticut’s law covers any employer with three or more employees compared to Title VII’s fifteen-employee and the ADEA’s twenty-employee minimum thresholds.
Connecticut’s anti-discrimination law differs from federal law in another important respect. Discrimination complaints “must be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged act of discrimination . . .,” General Statutes Sec. 46a-82(e). The Title VII charge-filing period in deferral states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire is 300 days, a longer period than the applicable period under those states’ anti-discrimination laws (180 days in Connecticut and New Hampshire and 6 months in Massachusetts). This means the state complaint-filing period will expire several months before the Title VII charge-filing period expires. A complainant who waits until the last minute to file combined Title VII and state HRL discrimination charges will have already let the applicable state filing period expire.
The 300-day Title VII charge-filing period in deferral states is not jurisdictional. It can be waived by a forgetful employer. It can also be tolled if there are equitable grounds excusing a complainant’s belated filing. Finally, the employer’s action or conduct during the 300-day period can block the employer through the judicial doctrine of estoppel from arguing a Title VII charge filed after more than 300 days is untimely.
All these exceptions to the Title VII 300-day charge-filing period became points of contention when the Supreme Court in Zipes v. TWA, 455 U.S. 385 (1982), held that federal filing period was not jurisdictional. Connecticut’s shorter 180-day complaint-filing period, on the other hand, is jurisdictional. See Terry Ann Williams v. Commission on Human Rights, 54 Conn. App. 251 (App. Ct., Conn., July 20, 1999). The waiver, equitable tolling, and estoppel exceptions that can excuse a late Title VII filing are not available under Connecticut’s Human Rights Law. That law’s 180-days is a mandatory no-exceptions limitations period. Thus, even employers who forget to argue a state law claim was untimely (i.e., those who don’t subscribe to the Employment Law Alert) can still raise that defense later.
A mandatory charge-filing deadline saves an employer many headaches. Consider the facts in the Williams case itself. Ms. Williams was employed by Shawmut Bank Connecticut, now Fleet Bank of Connecticut. She was given a written warning about her work on January 28, 1991, worked the next day, but then called in sick and never returned to work thereafter. She filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging work-related stress, which she claimed occurred on the day she received the written warning. She also claimed disability benefits alleging she became disabled on her last day worked.
Time passed. Two months later, the bank told Williams her job was filled and she had been replaced. She was then offered (and refused) a different job at the bank. She received full salary for another month and disability payments for another eight months. At that point, she took another job with Colt Firearms. Nine months later, Williams wrote to the bank asking to return to work. The bank responded saying it needed more time to consider her request but that it would not raise a limitations defense for the period “after” her letter. This response by the bank gave Williams the opening to argue that Shawmut should be estopped from claiming that her February 14, 1994 state law disability discrimination charge was untimely filed. The appellate court’s ruling that the Connecticut statute imposed a mandatory jurisdictional deadline meant Shawmut did not have to address this estoppel argument.
Connecticut employers need to be on their toes. The Title VII charge-filing period is much longer and is not jurisdictional. Connecticut Human Rights Law claims are governed by a shorter, jurisdictional limitations period. Alert Connecticut employers can use these statutory differences to their advantage.
The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require and further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative.