Last week, the Ohio Court of Appeals enforced a shortened limitations period of six months contained in a job application to bar state law claims for hostile work environment, sex discrimination and invasion of privacy brought against the plaintiff’s former employer and co-workers. Fayak v. Univ. Hosps., 2020-Ohio-5512. The Court found that parties may shorten the limitations periods of state law claims, including those under R.C. 4112. While the Sixth Circuit last year in Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino, 939 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2019) had found such contractually shortened limitations periods outside arbitration agreements to be barred by Title VII and federal law is typically applied to similar R.C. 4112 claims, the Logan Court also noted that the limitations periods for other federal claims, like Section 1981 and ERISA, could be shortened by contract because those claims borrow from state law. Accordingly, because the plaintiff had not filed suit for more than six months after the last allegedly discriminatory or harassing act, all of her claims were barred by the contractual limitations period.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff began
working in December 2013 and began an extended medical leave of absence in
April 2015. She claimed to have suffered
from sex discrimination and harassment from her hire until she began the
extended medical leave and this caused her great anxiety and panic attacks,
etc. Her physician’s statement only covered her
absence until July 2015, but she never returned to work or provided medical
support for a continued medical leave. She did not allege any discriminatory or
harassing conduct after April 2015. In
June 2016, she was finally terminated based on an unapproved absence after
failing to satisfy requests for updated medical information supporting her
continued need to be off work. She
initially filed suit against just her employer in September 2016, but
voluntarily dismissed it and refiled again in February 2017, this time adding
several co-workers as defendants. Her
job application contained the following waiver:
“I agree that any claim or lawsuits relating
to my service with University Hospitals or any of its subsidiaries or
affiliates must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the
employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any
statute of limitations to the contrary.” The employment application was
submitted with her typewritten name, which represented her electronic signature
according to the application.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the
shortened limitation was unenforceable under the Logan decision because Ohio courts generally follow federal
precedent interpreting Title VII.
Under Ohio law, it has been held that
“[g]enerally, in the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a
provision in a contract may validly limit, as between the parties, the time for
bringing an action on such contract to a period less than that prescribed in a
general statute of limitations provided that the shorter period shall be a
reasonable one.” . . . Further, a shortened limitations period contained in an
application for employment can bar claims that are untimely filed. . . . As the
defendants argue, courts have held that a six month contractual limitations
period is enforceable for employment-related claims and is not inherently
unreasonable.
The Court found that the Logan
court only rejected the shortened limitations period for Title VII claims based
on a nationwide policy favoring uniform federal limitations periods that are self-contained
within the Title VII statute and this issue did not apply to state law claims
or to federal claims which borrow state-law limitations periods, such as with
claims brought under Section 1981, or ERISA. “As stated in Logan, i[i]n situations where only a general limitation period
applied, such as ERISA and § 1981, we have allowed the limitation period to be
contractually altered.’” The Logan court also was influenced by the
fact that the limitations period for Title VII claims was contained within the
statute and was essentially a substantive right that could not be prospectively
waived. This made it more similar to the
FLSA and less like other federal rights which borrowed from state law. Finally, the Logan Court limited to arbitration clauses the Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) case which had tacitly approved a one-year shortened limitations
period.
The Court also refused to consider whether the plaintiff in
fact accepted the shortened limitations period in her job application because
she did not raise that argument before the trial court. In any event, the Court found that other
courts had found 6- months to be reasonable and to have enforced similar
provisions in other job applications.
The plaintiff failed to allege any unlawful conduct occurred
after she began her extended medical leave of absence in April 2015. She produced no evidence disputing the lawful
reason for her termination for being on an unapproved leave of absence. Accordingly, the Court found that the
limitations period began to run no later than her April 2015 medical leave even
though she never filed suit for 14 months.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
