Skip to main content

Reporting discrimination before suing

Fort Bend County v. Davis

Updated Oct 18, 2026

In brief

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the appeals court, ruling that the charge-filing step does not by itself take away a federal court’s power to hear a Title VII claim.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 9-0 · June 3, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg

What it’s about
Lois Davis’s Title VII religion-discrimination claim did not meet the required charge-filing step, and the dispute was whether that barred a federal court from hearing her claim.
Who it affects
For Davis’s claim, the missed filing step did not itself remove the federal court’s power to hear it; the employer can waive an objection to the requirement.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Fort Bend County v. Davis
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the appeals court (affirmed) that the filing step is a procedural rule the employer can give up, not a limit on a federal court’s authority to hear the claim.

Title VII requires workers to complete an administrative charge-filing step for workplace discrimination claims.

Question presented

Whether Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional?

What the Court decided

Holding

Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional. Pp. 5– 11. 893 F. 3d 300, affirmed.

Result
Affirmed

The Court's reasoning

The Court said the charge-filing step governs how a claim is handled, not a federal court’s power to hear it. The employer can waive (give up) an objection to that step.

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 9joined the Court's opinion
  1. Breyer
  2. Kagan
  3. Thomas
  4. Kavanaugh
  5. Ginsburgwrote the opinion
  6. Sotomayor
  7. Roberts
  8. Gorsuch
  9. Alito
9 justices joined the judgment.

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished its review, and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling remains in place.

Documents

4

Docket activity

9
  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

Show 4 more
  • Opinion added: Davis

    Jun 3, 2019 · Court records

  • Opinion added: opinion

    Jun 3, 2019 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Oct 18, 2018 · Court records

  • Brief added: Questions Presented

    Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 18, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis