A Win for Fairness in the U.S. Supreme Court: Administrative Filing Deadlines are Not Generally Jurisdictional Requirements

A Win for Fairness in the U.S. Supreme Court: Administrative Filing Deadlines are Not Generally Jurisdictional Requirements

The United States Supreme Court, in Harrow v. Department of Defense (2024) 601 U. S. ____, today clarified that very few statutes of limitations and filing deadlines are “jurisdictional bars” that automatically kill an employee’s claims, even if fairness should allow the employees a chance to have their complaints heard. Under Harrow, the vast majority of deadlines have “equitable exceptions.” Examples of equitable exceptions might apply – for example, as in Harrow – where an employee no longer had access to a government email address and therefore never learned of his deadline. As another example, an equitable exception (estoppel or tolling) might apply if a government agency misled an employee about the deadline for filing a claim or failed to communicate the deadline. Without the possibility of these equitable exceptions, employees who miss the often very short deadlines for filing claims would have no recourse at all because courts would not even have the right (that is, the jurisdiction) to hear their claims. The Supreme Court’s Harrow decision clarifies that few statutes of limitations are jurisdictional barriers – in other words, almost all of them allow for equitable exceptions, and the only jurisdictional barriers are those that are “very clear” in the law, saying they are jurisdictional barriers.

Harrow arose in the context of a  worker who was appealing a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and missed his sixty-day deadline. By way of background, when federal employees are subjected to adverse employment actions and prohibited personnel practices, they may file an appeal or complaint with the MSPB, which adjudicates certain claimed violations of federal workers’ rights.[1] After the MSPB has reached a decision in an employee’s case, it issues a final order or final decisions from the agency. If the MSPB rules against the employee, then the employee has the right to appeal the order/decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “within 60 days.” 5 U.S. Code § 7703 (b)(1).

Mr. Harrow originally filed an appeal with the MSPB against the Department of Defense, challenging a six-day furlough in 2013. After various significant delays, the MSPB issued a final order in May 2022 affirming the administrative judge’s decision that went against Mr. Harrow. As prescribed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1), Mr. Harrow was supposed to bring his appeal to the Federal Circuit “within 60 days.”

Unfortunately, the MSPB sent the final order to Mr. Harrow to an old work email address that he could no longer access. This resulted in Mr. Harrow not receiving notice until September 2022, more than 120 days after the order was issued, when he searched on the MSPB’s website to investigate his complaint.

After Mr. Harrow learned of the final order, he filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit. In his filings, Mr. Harrow explained the extenuating circumstances that caused untimely filing and urged the court to consider his equitable request to excuse his filing after the 60-day deadline in the law. The appeals court ruled that the sixty-day statutory requirement was in fact a jurisdictional requirement and therefore, the Federal Circuit could not hear Mr. Harlow’s late appeal. Mr. Harrow sought review from the United State Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that 5 U.S. Code § 7703 (b)(1), which requires petitions to review final orders/decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board to be brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within sixty days after the Board issues notice of the final order/decision, is not a jurisdictional bar to the Court hearing such petitions. While the procedural regulation does mandate that the petitions must be brought within sixty days, a violation of this provision does not automatically deprive the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit of authority to review the petition. The Court of Appeals may still consider equitable arguments, like waiver, forfeiture, and equitable tolling, to allow appeals to continue despite missed deadlines.

The Supreme Court held that when Congress seeks to enact a jurisdictional limit on a court’s authority, Congress must “clearly state” that it is seeking to do so. Procedural requirements that are meant to guide civil litigation must meet a high threshold to impose a jurisdictional barrier upon a court. Time bars are generally non-jurisdictional, even when those bars are framed in laws in mandatory terms.

The Court distinguished a time bar that would be a jurisdictional barrier as applying very narrowly, in an appeal “from one Article III court to another.” Because the MSPB is not an Article III court (like a District Court or the Court of Appeals), the narrow exception does not apply.

Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. won an order that a worker’s missed statute of limitations was not a jurisdictional bar, and was subject to equitable tolling, in Gebhardt v. Chu (Department of Energy) and Northrop Grumman (N.D. Cal. December 16, 2010). There the Defendant, Department of Energy, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction concerning Plaintiff’s discrimination claims. The defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her EEO claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105, which requires aggrieved federal workers to consult a agency EEO Counselor within 45 days. The District Court followed Ninth Circuit authority holding that time bars are not jurisdictional bars and rather, are subject to equitable considerations, like waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. Ultimately, we showed that our client’s claims were equitably tolled because she was misled by the agency into missing her deadline, and thus the defendant’s motion to dismiss her claims was denied.

Today’s Supreme Court decision in Harrow finally sets this issue to rest in almost all cases, so that defendants should not be able to dismiss cases by arguing that missed statutes of limitations prevent a court from hearing equitable arguments when a deadline is missed. Courts will be able to properly consider fairness arguments.

If you have questions about your employment law claims, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C.

[1] The MSPB does not hear cases regarding discrimination, unfair labor practices, arbitration issues, benefits, violations of civil service laws, rules, regulations, nor non-federal employee appeals. See About MSPB, https://www.mspb.gov/about/about.htm