Articles

Employment Law Update: Agreements Shortening an Employee’s Time to File Federal Anti-Discrimination Claims are Unenforceable

Date: March 19, 2026
The federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination – such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – establish specific time periods during which employees must act to timely pursue a claim. In a recent decision, the Fourth Circuit (which encompasses Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia) considered whether an employer and employee could lawfully enter into an agreement that shortens the time in which an employee must file such a claim. The Court concluded that such agreements are not permissible and are contrary to the statutory framework governing claims for discrimination. 
 
The case – Thomas v. EoTech, LLC – involves a terminated employee suing her employer for discrimination. At the start of her employment, the employee had signed a “limitations agreement” in which the employee agreed that she would file any claim relating to her employment within 180 calendar days after the occurrence of the event or decision to which her claim related. The agreement went on to provide that the 180-day period would be considered tolled during any period during which the employee had filed a charge of discrimination, but that the period would run during any window of time before the employee filed a charge or after the charge had been closed. 
 
The plaintiff was terminated in November 2022 and filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the following February. The charge remained pending for several months. Plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter in September 2023 and filed her lawsuit in December 2023. 
 
Her employer moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that 196 days had passed before the lawsuit was filed (106 days between the date of termination and the filing of the charge, and 90 days between the issuance of the right-to-sue letter and the filing of the lawsuit).  The trial court, relying on the terms of the limitations agreement, concluded that the plaintiff’s claims had not been timely filed and entered judgment in favor of the employer. 
 
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered whether the limitations agreement was contrary to Title VII and the ADEA’s enforcement mechanisms. The Court observed that the timing rules strike a “delicate balance” between competing policy goals, and that the time periods set by the anti-discrimination statutes would be reduced if the agreement were given effect. The Court also expressed concern for a scenario in which an employee filed a claim that would be timely under the statutory language, only to then be confronted with an agreement signed by the employee many years earlier as part of the hiring process under which the employee had consented to those time periods being shortened. Ultimately, the Court concluded that an employer and employee “may not prospectively render untimely a lawsuit that would otherwise be timely under Title VII or the ADEA.” 
 
The decision confirms employers operating in the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction may not shorten the time period in which employees may pursue claims under the federal anti-discrimination statutes. Employers that have such agreements will no longer be available to use for an untimely filing defense to the types of claims addressed by the Court’s decision. Please reach out to Whiteford’s Labor and Employment department for any questions or assistance in compliance.
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.