Search form

Employee Cannot Bypass Title VII, ADA Regulatory Schemes to Hold Public Employers Personally Liable, Third Circuit Rules

By Marla N. Presley and Jenna M. Decker
  • September 1, 2017

Plaintiff-employees cannot pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) for rights created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia has held in a case of first impression for the Third Circuit. Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, et al., No. 16-4383 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2017). The Court joins seven other circuits to have considered the issue and came to the same conclusion.

After exhausting her administrative remedies, the plaintiff, Cheryl Williams, filed suit against her former employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of her race and disability. Because no individual liability exists under Title VII or the ADA, Williams relied on Section 1983 to bring claims against her two supervisors in their individual capacities as “state actors.” The Western District of Pennsylvania granted the PHRC’s motion for summary judgment, finding Title VII and the ADA do not create individually enforceable rights under Section 1983. Williams appealed to the Third Circuit and the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

Title VII and the ADA have comprehensive regulatory schemes that include pre-lawsuit requirements, discreet filing deadlines, and limited liability for individual actors, the Third Circuit explained. Section 1983 contains no such administrative scheme. Instead, Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to proceed directly in court.

The court found that allowing Title VII or ADA claims to be brought as Section 1983 claims would “thwart Congress’s carefully crafted administrative scheme by throwing open a back door to the federal courthouse when the front door is purposefully fortified.” Thus, plaintiffs seeking to recover for workplace discrimination must use the administrative process outlined in the antidiscrimination statutes and cannot bypass those requirements through Section 1983.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other workplace developments.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices