On January 8, 2019, Hunton Andrews Kurth secured an important victory for pro bono client, Fenyang Stewart, in a federal employment-discrimination suit in the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Stewart, a patent examiner working for the US Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”), suffered from various ailments and requested accommodations from the USPTO. After the USPTO refused some of his requested accommodations, Stewart filed an administrative complaint of employment discrimination within the agency. In the ensuing months, he amended his administrative complaint several times, and subsequently brought suit against the USPTO under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court found that Stewart failed to comply with Title VII’s 180-day waiting period, which requires federal employees to wait 180 days to file a lawsuit after filing a complaint to allow the agency time to investigate any alleged discrimination claims. Based on this failure, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the lawsuit and therefore dismissed Stewart’s case.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court in a unanimous, published opinion. As a matter of first impression, the court held that Title VII’s 180-day waiting period is not a jurisdictional rule. The court then rejected the district court’s interpretation of Title VII’s 180-day waiting period, finding that the waiting period runs from the filing of the employee’s “initial charge,” rather than from the filing of the last amendment as the district court held. Stewart’s suit, therefore, was timely and valid, because it was filed more than 180 days after his initial complaint.

Kevin Elliker, an associate in the Issues & Appeals practice of Hunton Andrews Kurth, briefed and argued the case on behalf of Mr. Stewart. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion can be found at Stewart v. Iancu, 2019 WL 122868, --- F.3d ---- (4th Cir. 2019) and on the Fourth Circuit’s website.

Bloomberg’s coverage of the victory can be found here.