Don't Try to Shorten Statutory Time Periods

Recently, a Toledo area company got its wrist slapped by a federal appellate court. The reason? The company, Fresh Products, LLC, attempted to limit the amount of time its employees could sue for ADA or ADEA violations.

In the dispute, the employee claimed that she had been discriminated against when she, together with several other employees, was laid off. She filed a complaint with the OCRC which was then also filed with the EEOC. The OCRC dismissed the complaint some 8 months after she was let go and the EEOC dismissed the complaint some five months after the OCRC’s decision. Shortly after that, the employee filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging age, race and disability discrimination under both federal and state laws.

After she lost at the trial level, when the trial court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, she appealed and in that process, the appellate court ruled that the company’s attempt to restrict the amount of time the employee had to file a lawsuit (6 months) was improper. As noted above, the OCRC and the EEOC soaked up that six month period, doing their investigations. If the court had allowed that restriction to stand, the employee (and all others like her) would be out of luck because the time to sue had contractually expired.

In the end, the court ruled that while the contractual limitations period was enforceable with regards to the plaintiff's claims under Ohio law, "the limitations periods in the ADA and ADEA give rise to substantive, non-waivable rights," and thus could not be modified by contract.

In the end, the claims of discrimination were thrown out (and the trial court’s decision was affirmed), but the holding that such contractual restrictions were verboten is the big take away. Best to double check your employees’ handbooks!

To read the case in its entirely, click here.