Fourth Circuit Limits Employers’ Ability to Shorten Federal Discrimination Deadlines

Labor & Employment

A new appellate decision limits how far employers can go when trying to shorten employees’ time to sue for certain federal discrimination claims.  For years, some employers have tried to shorten the applicable statute limitations for such claims via contract with their employees.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Fourth Circuit”), which has jurisdiction over North Carolina, recently opined on this practice. The Court held that employers may not, by contract, shorten the statutory deadlines for claims brought under Title VII or the ADEA.

On March 4, 2026, the  Fourth Circuit ruled in Thomas v. EOTech, LLC that employers may not enforce contractual provisions that shorten the statutory deadlines for bringing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). While employers may still shorten statutes of limitation for certain state-law claims (where allowed under the applicable state law), the Fourth Circuit ruled that federal employment discrimination deadlines are not subject to change by private agreement.

The decision serves as a reminder that while employers have some flexibility to manage litigation risk, federal employment discrimination statutes place firm limits on what can be waived by agreement.

The Dispute in Thomas

Like most employers, EOTech required employees to sign onboarding paperwork. That paperwork included a clause stating that any employment‑related lawsuit—including discrimination claims—had to be filed within 180 days of the challenged employment action. The agreement also paused that deadline while an administrative charge was pending.

After her termination, the plaintiff in Thomas filed timely charges with the EEOC and state agency, received a right‑to‑sue notice, and sued within the federal statute’s 90‑day window—but outside the employer’s contractual deadline.

The employer argued that the agreement controlled.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

The New Rule: Federal Discrimination Filing Deadlines Cannot Be Shortened by Contract

According to the Fourth Circuit, federal employment discrimination timelines cannot be rewritten by private agreement. The Court emphasized that Title VII and the ADEA specifically impose a multi-step enforcement process that includes: (1) administrative exhaustion by filing a charge with the EEOC; (2) time for agency investigation and conciliation; and (3) a separate, post-administrative 90-day window to file suit after a right-to-sue notice. Contractual provisions that purport to compress this process conflict with federal law and are unenforceable.

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that tolling solved the problem. It noted that, even with tolling, the employee was left with less total time than federal law guarantees to complete both required steps—filing an administrative charge and then deciding whether to litigate. That shortfall, the court explained, effectively forces employees to rush the administrative process or prepare litigation prematurely.

The Split Outcome: Federal vs. State Claims

Notably, the outcome in this case was not all or nothing.

The Court affirmed dismissal of the employee’s Maryland Fair Employment Practice Act claims, noting that Maryland law permits reasonable contractual shortening of limitations periods. Because the employee failed to show that the 180 day deadline was unreasonable under state law, the agreement remained enforceable as to those claims.

The split result highlights an important reality: federal and state employment claims often operate under different rules, even when they arise from the same facts.

Many states have their own fair employment agencies. In these “referral” states, employees generally have up to 300 days to file a charge with the EEOC rather than 180. Crucially, state laws may also impose their own deadlines, which can be longer, shorter, or otherwise different from federal timelines. While federal law governs Title VII and ADEA claims, contractual provisions may still be enforced as to state law claims, depending on the jurisdiction. The result is a layered system in which federal statutes, state statutes, and contracts may all point in different directions—making clarity and careful drafting essential.

What This Means for Employers

The Fourth Circuit’s decision makes clear that Congress—not private contracts—sets the rules for enforcing federal employment discrimination laws. Employers operating in multiple states should take particular care, as differences among federal law, state law, and contractual terms continue to create a complex—and potentially risky—compliance landscape.

Employers should consult with employment counsel and consider taking the following actions to ensure compliance while managing litigation risk:

• Review employment and arbitration agreements for shortened filing deadlines.
• Exclude Title VII and ADEA claims from any contractual limitations provisions.
• Confirm whether applicable state laws permit contractual modification of statutes of limitation.
• Account for 300-day EEOC filing periods in referral states.
• Ensure severability provisions protect enforceable portions of agreements.