| Abstrakt: |
In January 2021, the Sixth Circuit answered in Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLC, a case of first impression, that an employer and employee may not contractually agree to shorten the statutory time-to-file period in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In short, the ADEA's time-to-file provision requires an employee to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days from the time they experienced alleged age discrimination. The employee may then bring private suit after sixty days from the time they filed with the EEOC, regardless of whether the EEOC has issued a Right to Sue Notice at that time. With no clear guidance from the statute's language or the Supreme Court, courts diverge on whether the ADEA's time-to-file period may be contractually shortened in private agreement. Argument in favor promotes the freedom to contract and asserts that the time-to-file period functions merely as a procedural mechanism. Argument against draws on protected filing times of other anti-discrimination statutes and asserts that the ADEA's time-to-file period is a non-waivable, substantive right created by the ADEA itself. In Thompson, the Sixth Circuit emphasized the similarities between the ADEA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to reach its conclusion. This Note explores the question of whether likening the statutory time-to-file period under the ADEA to that of Title VII is a logical comparison. Although the ADEA's time-to-file should be protected to some extent as an inherent right created by the statute, it should not be protected on the basis of its similarities to Title VII. Because Title VII prevents a claimant from filing private suit until the EEOC issues a Right to Sue Notice, but the ADEA does not, comparing the two time-to-file periods is not the right approach. Instead, this Note calls for either Congress to clarify the function of ADEA time-to-file waivers by amending the statute, or for the Supreme Court to definitively answer this issue with binding precedent specifically as applied to the ADEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
