Insights

Home > News & Insights > Insights > Employers Attempt To Limit Time To File Claims In Applications

Share this on:   a b j c

Employers Attempt To Limit Time To File Claims In Applications

Published by on August 4, 2008

A story in the ABA Journal news section recently briefly discusses employers attempting to limit the time to file claims in their job applications.  There is also a story on Law.com on the same topic.  Why is there a renewed interest in this practice? A recent decision upholding Chrysler’s job application waiver has apparently fueled […]

A story in the ABA Journal news section recently briefly discusses employers attempting to limit the time to file claims in their job applications.  There is also a story on Law.com on the same topic.  Why is there a renewed interest in this practice?

A recent decision upholding Chrysler’s job application waiver has apparently fueled the renewed interest in this practice.  Here is a story on the case.

The articles comment that more employers are using this practice in an attempt to limit employee claims and provide certainty.  Claims with a long limitations period often become difficult to defend because witnesses have moved or documents have been destroyed as part of a routine records retention policy. 

The benefit of such a practice may vary depending on whether it has been tested in the employer’s jurisdiction.  In the short run, employers that want to try imposing their own limitations period on employee claims should be prepared to incur the additional expense of collateral litigation on the issue when they try to assert it.

For a period of time in the 1990s, mandatory arbitration policies were the rage in employment law circles as a way to contain employment practices liability.  Will the use of time limit provisions in job applications be the wave of the future?  Only time will tell.

For background, ContractsProf Blog has a post about the Michigan decision in 2005 upholding a waiver clause.  Here is a 2004 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the issue.

Topics:

Share:   a b j c