The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued an important pro-employee decision holding that employers cannot use private agreements with their employees to shorten the statutory filing periods for employment discrimination claims. On March 4, 2026, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Thomas v. EOTech, LLC, rejecting the employer’s contention that an employee’s suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) was untimely because it was filed later than the 180 days required by an agreement signed by the employee. The decision protects the rights of employees to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and to sue employers for claims of discrimination under federal law within the full statutory timeline, rather than an abbreviated one forced upon them by their employer.
Title VII and the ADEA protect employees from discrimination based on several protected characteristics, including race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, and age. Before filing a lawsuit under those federal statutes, employees must first file a charge with the EEOC. Under Title VII, an employee must file a charge within 180 days of the discrimination or within 300 days when there is a state or local agency that enforces a law prohibiting employment discrimination on the same basis. In most cases, the employee may then file a lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC.
Employers have tried to curtail these widely accepted deadlines by requiring employees to sign agreements that shorten the time in which they can file lawsuits against their employers – a practice the Fourth Circuit rejected in the Thomas decision. The employer, EOTech, required its employee Natalie Thomas to sign an agreement shortening the time she could sue EOTech for any disputes “relating to [her] employment.” Specifically, the agreement stated that Ms. Thomas would not be able to file an EEOC charge or sue EOTech more than 180 days after a discriminatory event, even if the statutory language of Title VII or the ADEA would have otherwise allowed her to file a charge within 300 days and file a lawsuit thereafter.
Ms. Thomas filed her EEOC charge three months after EOTech fired her, asserting she was terminated because of her race, sex and age. Ms. Thomas later sued EOTech in federal court under Title VII and the ADEA. EOTech then attempted to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Ms. Thomas’s claims were untimely under the employment agreement because 196 days had elapsed since her termination, surpassing the privately agreed-upon 180-day limitation. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding the agreement to be unenforceable.
Several key points undergirded the Fourth Circuit’s rationale. First, the Court believed the timeline set forth by Congress struck a “delicate balance of interests,” and that the interests of both employees and employers are served by sticking to those statutory timelines. Second, the Court reasoned that Title VII and the ADEA create a “remedial scheme” intended for “laypersons, rather than lawyers.” Permitting employers to shorten the limitations period would, in the Court’s view, “seriously impair the navigability of this system,” which it recognized is already complicated. Third, the court expressed concern over the potential impact that such agreements could have on the efficiency of the EEOC, since the agency would have to prioritize investigating claims held to a shortened timeline. In all, the Court recognized that Congress carefully crafted a statutory timeline for filing charges under Title VII and the ADEA, and it was unwilling to allow employers to coerce employees into shortening the amount of time they have to advocate for their rights. The Court, however, did not extend its reasoning to Ms. Thomas’s state law claims, and held that Maryland state law permits an employer to require an employee to sign an agreement shortening the time in which they can file lawsuits.
The Thomas decision by the Fourth Circuit (which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) joins the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) in holding that employers cannot shorten the time for an employee to bring a lawsuit under federal anti-discrimination statutes. Similar agreements are now unenforceable in these states as it applies to federal law claims, like Title VII and the ADEA. Employees in more states could be covered if additional circuits join the reasoning of the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.
Written by Peyton Beal, Spring 2026 Law Clerk
Correia & Puth represents employees confronting discrimination and retaliation in their workplace, including those with the types of claims at issue in the Thomas v. EOTech, LLC case. If you have faced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at your job, please contact us today.
