June 05, 2026 | Posted By: Emma Doull
If you signed an employment agreement before your first day of work, you may not have read every line. Most people don’t. But buried in some of those agreements is a provision that could seriously undermine your legal rights if you ever experience workplace discrimination by shortening the time you have to file a claim. A recent federal appeals court decision makes clear that such clauses, at least when applied to discrimination claims under federal law, are unenforceable.
The EEOC Process and Why Timing Matters
Before an employee can sue an employer for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), they must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That charge must generally be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act, or within 300 days if a state or local agency enforces a law prohibiting the same type of discrimination.
Once a charge is filed, the EEOC takes over. It investigates the claim and may attempt to resolve it through conciliation. If conciliation fails or the EEOC decides not to pursue the case itself, it issues a “Notice of Right to Sue.” The employee then has 90 days from receipt of that notice to file a lawsuit in federal court.
This layered process is intentional. Congress built it into both statutes to allow the EEOC to investigate, mediate, and resolve claims before litigation begins. That structure plays an important role in how the court analyzed the issue in a recent case.
Our firm has written previously about EEOC filing deadlines and how they work in practice. Understanding those deadlines is essential, and this new ruling adds another layer that both employees and employers need to be aware of.
Thomas v. EOTech: What the Fourth Circuit Decided
In Thomas v. EOTech, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether a pre-employment “limitations agreement” could validly shorten the time an employee had to bring discrimination claims.
When the employee in Thomas was hired, she signed an agreement that compressed her window to sue for employment-related claims to just 180 days. That 180-day clock was tolled while any administrative charge was pending before the EEOC. Compare that to what the statutes actually provide: up to 300 days to file an EEOC charge, followed by 90 days after receiving a right-to-sue notice to file in court. The combined statutory timeline is meaningfully longer.
After the employee was terminated, she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The EEOC eventually issued a right-to-sue notice, and she filed her lawsuit in federal court. Her employer moved to dismiss the case as untimely under the limitations agreement, arguing that 196 days had passed. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.
The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held that parties cannot, by private agreement, make a lawsuit untimely under Title VII or the ADEA if it would otherwise be timely under those statutes’ own rules. The agreement was unenforceable as applied to those federal discrimination claims.
The court’s reasoning centered on the carefully constructed remedial schemes Congress created for both statutes. Title VII and the ADEA were not simply designed to give individual employees a right to sue. They were designed to channel disputes through the EEOC first, giving the agency a meaningful opportunity to investigate and resolve workplace discrimination. Allowing private agreements to cut short that process, the court concluded, conflicts with what Congress intended.
The Broader Picture: Two Circuits Agree
The Fourth Circuit is not alone. The Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, reached the same conclusion in an earlier case. With two federal appeals courts now aligned on this issue, the legal landscape is becoming clearer for both employees and employers.
It is important to note what this ruling does not cover. The Fourth Circuit’s decision focused specifically on the unique remedial structure of Title VII and the ADEA. Limitations-shortening clauses in employment agreements that apply to other types of claims (contract disputes, state law claims, or statutes without the same mandatory administrative exhaustion requirements) are not necessarily affected by this ruling. The analysis is statute-specific.
The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Employees and employers in those states are directly subject to this ruling. Employers in other jurisdictions should monitor developments in their circuits, but the trend is clear.
What This Means if You Are an Employee
If you believe you have been discriminated against at work, whether because of your race, sex, age, religion, national origin, or another protected characteristic, do not assume that a clause in your employment agreement has eliminated your options. A provision purporting to shorten your time to bring a Title VII or ADEA claim may not be enforceable.
That said, timing still matters enormously. Even with this ruling, the EEOC’s statutory deadlines are real, and missing them can cost you the ability to pursue your case. If you think you have experienced workplace discrimination, the most important thing you can do is speak with an employment attorney as soon as possible. Waiting can only hurt you.
For a deeper look at how the EEOC charge process works, our prior post on EEOC claims explained, and our guide on how to file a claim of employment discrimination are good starting points.
What This Means if You Are an Employer
Employers who use pre-employment agreements or onboarding paperwork with shortened limitations periods should work with employment counsel to review those provisions. If your agreements contain clauses that purport to compress the time employees have to bring Title VII or ADEA claims, those clauses are likely unenforceable in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, and could be challenged elsewhere as well.
That means the clause offers no actual protection, but it does create risk: it signals to employees and their attorneys that the employer was attempting to reduce legal exposure by contract, which could color how a dispute is perceived.
Employers should also keep in mind that this ruling applies specifically to the Title VII and ADEA claims. A comprehensive review of onboarding agreements and arbitration clauses by qualified employment counsel is the best way to understand which provisions remain enforceable and which do not.
Speak With an Employment Attorney
Whether you are an employee who has faced workplace discrimination or an employer managing compliance risk, the law in this area is developing. Understanding your rights and obligations (and having the right legal team in your corner) makes a real difference.
The attorneys at Hoyer Law Group represent both employees and employers in employment discrimination matters, EEOC proceedings, and compliance with employment agreements. Contact us today for a confidential evaluation at www.hoyerlawgroup.com/contact/ or call (844) 531-0082.
This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney.