Minnesota Law Review

Amending Title VII to Safeguard the Viability of Retaliation Claims

Before a victim of employment discrimination can pursue her claims in federal court, she must first exhaust her administrative remedies. This is done by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an equivalent state agency. After reviewing and investigating the charge, the EEOC usually issues a “right-to-sue” letter, signaling that the employee has exhausted her administrative remedies and can now sue in federal court.

Along with discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits retaliation by an employer against employees who file a charge with the EEOC or initiate a discrimination lawsuit. Such an act of retaliation, by its nature, occurs after the employee’s initial filing with the EEOC. This Note addresses two questions that arise from such a scenario. First, does Title VII’s exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine require the employee to file an additional charge with the EEOC before she can sue for retaliation? Second, should it?

A circuit split currently exists, with courts differing on interpretations of Title VII’s statutory text and the Supreme Court’s holding in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan. This Note argues that the statute and precedent require the EEOC to review each “discrete act” before a plaintiff can commence a federal discrimination lawsuit pertaining to that act. This Note argues that retaliation against an employee for filing an initial charge or lawsuit is an act “discrete” from the underlying claims of discrimination, and thus requires a second charge with the EEOC.

However, this Note further argues that such a requirement, while legally mandated, detrimentally affects victims of employment discrimination. This Note argues that a strong anti-retaliation mechanism is essential to ending workplace discrimination, and a second filing requirement would significantly weaken that mechanism by overly complicating an already complex procedural scheme. Finally, this Note proposes an amendment to Title VII that exempts post-filing retaliation claims from mandatory EEOC review, striking a balance between the EEOC’s interest in reviewing all Title VII claims and a plaintiff’s interest in fair procedural requirements.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days