When we take on an employment discrimination claim, it’s crucial to recognize the common defenses employers use. Defending against discrimination requires a close understanding of both federal and Illinois laws, which set the rules for employees’ and employers’ rights. These cases can involve complicated legal arguments, with employer defenses often relying on technical and procedural details. Knowing what strategies employers might use helps us stay one step ahead, ready to identify and counter these defenses effectively.
One of the most common initial defenses employers may use is challenging the jurisdiction or procedure of the complaint. Employers may argue that an employee failed to meet the necessary procedural requirements before filing a lawsuit. For example, under federal law, a plaintiff typically needs to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before bringing a discrimination claim to court. In Illinois, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) has similar filing requirements for state-level claims.
If a plaintiff fails to follow these filing requirements or does not do so within the specified timeframe, an employer may argue that the case should be dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction. In other words, they’ll claim that the court or agency does not have the authority to hear the case. This defense underscores the importance of acting promptly and understanding the required filing steps in both federal and Illinois procedures.
Another defense employers often use is the “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” defense. Employers may claim that their actions were based on valid, lawful reasons unrelated to discrimination. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Illinois Human Rights Act, employers are permitted to make decisions based on job performance, conduct, or other business-related criteria as long as they are not discriminatory.
For instance, if an employee alleges they were terminated due to their race, gender, or age, the employer may counter by providing documented evidence that the termination was based on poor performance, attendance issues, or policy violations. By demonstrating a legitimate reason, the employer aims to show that discrimination was not a factor. However, we can challenge this defense by looking for inconsistencies in the employer’s explanation or by finding evidence of pretext—indications that the employer’s stated reason is merely a cover for discriminatory motives.
In certain limited cases, employers may invoke a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) defense. Under Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights Act, an employer can argue that a particular characteristic—such as sex, age, or religion—is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business. The BFOQ defense is highly restricted and is generally only permitted in circumstances where the employer can demonstrate a clear business need for a specific attribute.
For example, an employer might claim that hiring only female attendants in a women’s locker room is essential for privacy reasons. However, BFOQ defenses are difficult for employers to prove and must be directly related to the core job duties. We need to examine the details of any BFOQ claim closely, as it’s often applied inappropriately to justify discriminatory practices that are not truly job-related.
Another procedural defense employers may use is the statute of limitations, which refers to the time limits for bringing a claim. Under federal law, employees typically have 180 to 300 days to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, depending on the state in which they’re filing. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for filing a discrimination complaint with the IDHR is 180 days for most claims, although some types of claims have extended deadlines.
If an employee waits too long to file a claim, the employer can argue that the case should be dismissed due to the statute of limitations. This defense emphasizes the importance of acting quickly once an employee suspects discrimination. If anemployee misses the filing deadline, it can severely hinder the ability to pursue the case. However, there are circumstances, such as ongoing discrimination, that may allow for exceptions to the statute of limitations. We may need toargue for an exception if there’s evidence of continuous discriminatory conduct.
In some cases, an employer may claim that an employee’s misconduct or policy violations justify the adverse employment action, even if they learned of this misconduct after the action was taken. This is known as the “after-acquired evidence” defense. For example, if an employee alleges they were wrongfully terminated, the employer might discover during litigation that the employee falsified documents or engaged in other misconduct. According to federal and Illinois law, while this defense may not bar a discrimination claim outright, it can limit the remedies available to the employee if proven.
If an employer successfully uses an after-acquired evidence defense, it may reduce the compensation the employee can recover, particularly regarding back pay. However, it’s critical for us to scrutinize the timing and relevance of the misconduct evidence. If the employer was unaware of this evidence at the time of the adverse action, it weakens their argument that the misconduct justified the action in question.
The business necessity defense allows employers to argue that a specific practice or requirement is essential to business operations, even if it has a discriminatory impact. According to Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights Act, an employer must demonstrate that the requirement is job-related and consistent with business needs. Common examples include certain educational qualifications or physical requirements that might disproportionately affect a particular group.
We can counter this defense by analyzing whether the requirement is genuinely necessary and whether alternative practices could achieve the same business purpose without a discriminatory impact. If we can show that the requirement is not essential to the job or that there are less discriminatory alternatives, we may successfully challenge the employer’s business necessity defense.
In discrimination cases, employers may also argue that the employee lacks sufficient evidence to support their claim. Employers may try to discredit the plaintiff’s testimony or evidence, arguing that it’s speculative or not credible. They may also point out inconsistencies in the employee’s statements to undermine their case.
Federal and Illinois courts require that discrimination claims be supported by substantial evidence, including documents, witness testimony, or patterns of behavior. To counter this defense, we’ll need to provide strong, consistent evidence that demonstrates a pattern or practice of discrimination. Clear, reliable evidence can often overcome attempts by employers to dismiss a claim due to lack of evidence.
Employer defenses in discrimination cases can impact the remedies and damages available to employees. For example, if an employer successfully argues that they had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action, the court may dismiss the claim, resulting in no damages for the employee. Alternatively, if an employer raises an after-acquired evidence defense, it could limit the back pay or front pay available to the employee.
Federal law, including Title VII and Illinois law, provides various remedies for discrimination claims, including reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. However, the impact of employer defenses on potential remedies reinforces the importance of preparing a thorough, well-supported case. Understanding these defenses helps us anticipate potential challenges and advocate effectively for fair compensation and justice on behalf of our clients.
Employers may rely on procedural defenses to challenge the validity of a claim. Common procedural defenses include arguing that the employee missed the deadline for filing a complaint or failed to follow the proper steps before filing a lawsuit. Under federal law, employees are usually required to file a charge with the EEOC, while in Illinois, the complaint process often involves the IDHR. If these procedures aren’t followed correctly, an employer may argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
An employer may claim they had a legitimate reason for their action unrelated to discrimination.
We can counter this defense by showing evidence of pretext, which suggests that the stated reason is a cover for discriminatory motives. Evidence of inconsistent treatment, discriminatory comments, or a pattern of biased behavior can weaken the employer’s defense and strengthen the employee’s claim.
The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) defense allows an employer to argue that a specific trait, such as gender, is necessary for a job. For example, an employer might argue that only women can serve in a women’s locker room for privacy reasons. However, BFOQ is a limited defense and is only allowed when the qualification is essential for the job’s core functions. We often analyze whether the claimed qualification is truly job-related or if it’s being used to justify otherwise discriminatory practices.
Employers may argue that an employee waited too long to file a discrimination claim, using the statute of limitations as a defense. Federal law generally requires filing with the EEOC within 180 to 300 days of the discriminatory act, while Illinois has a 180-day limit for filing with the IDHR for most cases. If an employee misses this deadline, the employer may seek to dismiss the claim on that basis. However, in cases of ongoing discrimination, we can argue for exceptions to the statute of limitations.
After-acquired evidence refers to information the employer discovers after taking an adverse employment action, such as evidence of the employee’s misconduct. While it doesn’t necessarily prevent the employee from pursuing a claim, it can limit the damages they may recover if the court agrees with the employer. Employers may use this evidence to argue that they would have taken the same action had they known about the misconduct earlier.
At the Law Office of Michael T. Smith & Associates, we are here to help you understand and navigate the complexities ofemployment discrimination cases. If you believe your employer has unfairly discriminated against you, or if you’re facing challenges in pursuing your claim, don’t hesitate to contact us. Our Chicago employment discrimination attorneys have the experience to advocate for your rights and fight against any employer defenses that may arise.
To receive your Free consultation, contact our Chicago employment discrimination lawyer at the Law Office of Michael T. Smith & Associates when you call (847) 450-1103. Our office in Lisle, Illinois, serves clients throughout Chicago, and we’re committed to providing the legal support you need in your discrimination case. Let’s work together to ensure your rights are protected and that you receive fair treatment in the workplace.
We're ready to listen. Get started now by filling out the attached form.
