Third Circuit "Clarifies" Continuing Violation Doctrine

by Proskauer Rose LLP
Contact

In Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., No. 11-3913, 2013 WL 141890 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "clarified" the application of the continuing violation doctrine as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). This alert discusses the holding and significance of this decision for employers.

Facts

Plaintiff Shannon Mandel worked as an Inside Sales Customer Relations Coordinator for Defendant M & Q Packaging Corporation, which manufactures and sells packaging film.

On January 9, 2009, Mandel filed a Complaint against M & Q with the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, alleging, inter alia, sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that throughout her employment, spanning from October 25, 1996 to May 23, 2007, she was subject to a hostile work environment based on unwanted solicitations, gender-charged remarks (including references to her appearance), lewd comments, and less pay and vacation time than her male counterparts.

To file suit under Title VII in a deferral state such as Pennsylvania, the claimant must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1). On September 13, 2007, the EEOC received questionnaires (dated July 17, 2007) from Mandel. On the questionnaires, Mandel checked boxes stating "I want to file a charge." The EEOC processed the forms and issued a Charge of Discrimination (Charge) on December 14, 2007. That same day, Mandel requested that the EEOC dual file the Charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

In assessing the timeliness of Mandel's Title VII claims, the District Court determined that the EEOC questionnaires were sufficiently similar to a charge to toll the statute of limitations and, therefore, her claims would be timely so long as they occurred within 300 days of September 13, 2007, i.e., after November 17, 2006.

Mandel argued, however, that the alleged acts of discrimination prior to November 17, 2006 were, in fact, part of an ongoing pattern of harassment and, therefore, also timely under the continuing violation doctrine. The District Court rejected the application of the doctrine but, for the reasons set forth below, the Third Circuit reversed.

Governing Legal Standards

The Third Circuit restated the seminal distinctions between discrete acts of discrimination (i.e., "termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire") and a hostile work environment ("composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one 'unlawful employment practice'" and "cannot be said to occur on any particular day") for purposes of triggering the statute of limitations. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114-117.

On the one hand, "discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges," i.e.,  a discrete act in and of itself constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice. Id. at 113.

On the other hand, under the continuing violation doctrine, discriminatory acts that are not individually actionable may be aggregated to make out a hostile work environment claim; such acts "can occur at any time so long as they are linked in a pattern of actions which continues into the applicable limitations period." O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 105) (explaining courts may consider the "entire scope of a hostile work environment claim . . . so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period"). Accordingly, to allege a continuing violation, the plaintiff must show that all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and that at least one act falls within the applicable limitations period. See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 122; see also West v. Phila. Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 754–55 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining plaintiff must show that at least one act occurred within the filing period and that the harassment is "more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts of intentional discrimination").

Holding

Prior to Morgan, the Third Circuit had adopted from Berry v. Board of Supervisors, 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983), a non-exhaustive list of three factors to help distinguish between the occurrence of isolated acts of discrimination and a persistent, ongoing pattern. In particular, Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 113 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1997) and West v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 755 (3d Cir. 1995), contained dicta explaining that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the (i) subject matter ("whether the violations constitute the same type of discrimination"), (ii) frequency, and (iii) degree of permanence ("whether the nature of the violations should trigger the employee's awareness of the need to assert her rights and whether the consequences of the act would continue even in the absence of a continuing intent to discriminate") of the underlying acts.

Here, citing West, the District Court applied the Berry factors and determined that Plaintiff's claims met the subject matter and frequency requirements but failed the permanency requirement. The District Court reached this conclusion on the basis that Plaintiff should have been aware of the need to assert her rights but "did not pursue her claim with reasonable diligence, and thus she is precluded from using the continuing violation theory."

In reversing the District Court, the Third Circuit held that, following Morgan, permanency is not required to establish a continuing violation, reiterating:

It is precisely because the entire hostile work environment encompasses a single unlawful employment practice that we do not hold, as have some of the Circuits, that the plaintiff may not base a suit on individual acts that occurred outside the statute of limitations unless it would have been unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to sue before the statute ran on such conduct. The statute does not separate individual acts that are part of the hostile environment claim from the whole for the purposes of timely filing and liability. And the statute does not contain a requirement that the employee file a charge prior to 180 or 300 days 'after' the single unlawful practice 'occurred.' Given, therefore, that the incidents constituting a hostile work environment are part of one unlawful employment practice, the employer may be liable for all acts that are part of this single claim. In order for the charge to be timely, the employee need only file a charge within 180 or 300 days of any act that is part of the hostile work environment.

Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117–18.

Having clarified the continuing violation doctrine post-Morgan, the Third Circuit determined that Mandel could proceed under a continuing violation theory. Indeed, the Court concluded that Mandel had alleged at least one act fell within the statute of limitations period (i.e., she allegedly was called a derogatory gender-charged remark during a meeting), and many of the acts that occurred prior to the applicable limitations period involved similar conduct by the same individuals – thus suggesting a persistent, ongoing pattern. The Third Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings, including a determination of the scope of the incidents properly considered part of the continuing violation for the hostile work environment claim.

Takeaway

The Third Circuit's Mandel decision should brace employers for a more lenient application of the continuing violation doctrine, which could prolong otherwise untimely claims dating back a number of years. Furthermore, employers should beware that, even if an alleged discriminatory act is stale, the underlying facts may still be admissible as background evidence (and, therefore, practically speaking, may have the same effect as if the act was independently viable).

Employers also should note that the Third Circuit addressed the concern that a plaintiff might "unreasonably" delay filing a charge without the permanency requirement. To avoid such a result, the Mandel Court cited Morgan for the proposition that employers would have recourse, including equitable defenses such as laches. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 121–22. Defendant M & Q had raised the doctrine of laches as a defense, but the District Court did not consider it. In light of the clarified doctrine, the Third Circuit held that M & Q should have the opportunity to argue a laches defense, and the District Court should consider whether it applies.

* * *

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Third Circuit's Mandel decision or related jurisprudence, please contact your Proskauer lawyer or any co-chair of the Employment Law Counseling Practice Group.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Proskauer Rose LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Proskauer Rose LLP
Contact
more
less

Proskauer Rose LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.