6th Circuit: You can't cut ADA, ADEA statute of limitations period contractually

Employers may not contractually shorten the statute of limitations period for claims filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the 6th Circuit (which covers Kentucky and Tennessee employers) recently ruled. The decision echoes the court's rationale from a 2019 case (Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino), in which it determined the statute of limitations period for claims under Title VII cannot be contractually trimmed.

Facts

Upon hire by Fresh Products LLC, Cassandra Thompson signed an employee handbook page acknowledging:

I agree that any claim or lawsuit arising out of my employment with Fresh Products must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is subject [sic] of the claim or lawsuit. While I understand that the statute of limitations for claims arising out of an employment action may be longer than six (6) months, I agree to be bound by the six (6) month period of limitations set forth herein and I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.

Soon thereafter, Thompson was laid off. She ultimately filed a lawsuit, more than six months later. The lawsuit alleged ADA, ADEA, and Title VII claims as well as similar allegations under their Ohio state counterparts.

6th Circuit's decision

Relying on the shortened limitations period in the handbook, the district court dismissed Thompson's ADEA and ADA claims. Based on the 6th Circuit's Logan ruling, however, the lower court didn't bar her Title VII claims.