Two federal courts have now spoken – and your onboarding docs may need urgent revision
A federal appeals court has struck down a common employer practice: using pre-employment agreements to cut short the time workers have to file discrimination claims.
On March 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that employers cannot contractually shrink the deadlines that federal law gives employees to pursue discrimination claims. The decision is a direct signal to HR teams: check your onboarding paperwork now.
The case started simply enough. Natalie Thomas was hired by EOTech, LLC and, before her first day, signed an employment document that included what the court called a "Limitations Agreement" – a clause, drafted by EOTech, that gave Thomas only 180 days from any workplace incident to bring a claim. Under federal law, she would have had considerably more time.
When EOTech fired Thomas in November 2022, she did what federal law instructs employees to do. She filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, waited for the agency to complete its process, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed her lawsuit within 90 days – precisely on time under federal statute. EOTech's response was to argue that Thomas had already run out the clock under the 180-day agreement she signed at hiring. A lower court agreed and threw out her case entirely.
The appeals court disagreed, and its reasoning is important for anyone who manages employment agreements.
Federal anti-discrimination law – specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – does not work like a simple countdown clock. Congress built a two-step process: employees first go to the EEOC, and only after that can they file a private lawsuit. Those two steps together give workers at least 270 days under federal law. EOTech's agreement, while it paused the clock during the EEOC process, still capped the total time available for both steps at 180 days. The court found that no matter how the math is arranged, the agreement always ended up cutting into time that Congress specifically set aside for workers to pursue their claims.
The court also pushed back on EOTech's suggestion that employees should simply hire a lawyer and get a lawsuit ready while the EEOC is still doing its job. That, the court said, misses the entire point. The EEOC process exists precisely to resolve disputes without going to court. Telling workers to lawyer up in parallel defeats that purpose entirely.
There was also a practical concern that ran through the opinion. Many employees navigating the EEOC process have no legal representation. They rely on publicly available information – the statute, the EEOC website – which tells them they have 90 days to sue after receiving a right-to-sue letter. If employers can override that through a clause in an employment document signed at the start of a job, the system becomes difficult to navigate for the very people it was designed to protect.
Thomas's case now goes back to the lower court, where her federal discrimination claims will proceed. Her claims under Maryland's state anti-discrimination law were not reinstated, as the court found she had not made the necessary legal arguments to challenge that portion of the ruling.
For HR professionals, the decision carries a clear and immediate message. The Fourth Circuit's ruling is binding across five states – Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina – and it joins a similar ruling from the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Across that combined footprint, shortened limitations clauses in employment agreements are now unenforceable for federal discrimination claims.
The practical step is straightforward: pull your standard employment agreements and onboarding documents and look for any clause that sets a deadline shorter than what federal law provides for discrimination claims. If one exists, it needs to go.
The broader takeaway is less about legal compliance and more about workplace culture. Agreements that quietly limit rights that workers did not know they were giving up – signed at the start of a new job – are exactly the kind of practice that erodes employee trust. With two federal circuit courts now taking the same position, employers would do well to get ahead of this issue before it reaches their doorstep.
