|
Supreme court allows some late lawsuits when
workplace harassment occurs over a long period
By Anne Gearan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 10, 2002
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier
for victims to complain about long-term job discrimination
or harassment, ruling on Monday that statutes of limitations
do not always apply when shabby treatment is extended over
a period of months or years.
An unusual lineup of justices voted 5-4 to allow more leeway
for workers who claim a pattern of unfair treatment under
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Such suits can come outside the
usual 180- or 300-day time limitations so long as the suit
is filed within the limits for at least one of the alleged
rights violations, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
Otherwise, events at the start of the pattern would be excluded
from court review, leaving only the most recent incidents,
the majority reasoned.
"Given ... that the incidents comprising 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," Thomas wrote for himself and the four
justices in the court's moderate-to-liberal wing.
The coalition is noteworthy, because Thomas is one of the
court's most conservative justices and was head of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission under two Republican presidents.
Thomas rarely parts company with conservative compatriots
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia,
who dissented from the most significant part of Monday's ruling.
The court also clarified earlier precedents, ruling that workers
are bound by the time limitations when they allege single
or "discrete" acts of discrimination on the job.
It is only workers who claim an ongoing "hostile work
environment" who may sue over incidents that took place
outside that window.
A pattern of workplace discrimination "occurs over a
series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to
discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable
on its own," Thomas wrote. "Such claims are based
on the cumulative effect of individual acts."
The court also made clear that employers may still claim that
an employee was lax in filing a discrimination claim, and
workers cannot delay a claim for no reason.
The ruling is a partial victory for Abner Morgan, a black
former electrical worker for Amtrak. Morgan claimed he suffered
racial discrimination during nearly the entire five years
he worked for Amtrak, ending with his firing in 1995.
The case is National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 00-1614.
|
