No Charge, No Case: Employee's Discovery Stonewalling Dooms Title VII Claim

Published: 2026-04-14 14:10:16 ET LHX

Published on 04/14/2026 at 02:10 pm EDT

A federal court's March 30, 2026 ruling in Farlow v. L3 Communications Integrated Systems LP offers a sharp lesson for employers and their counsel: a plaintiff who refuses to produce his own EEOC charge of discrimination during discovery may be signing the death warrant for his case. The Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the employer—not because the plaintiff's discrimination claim lacked initial plausibility, but because he repeatedly refused to back it up with the one document that mattered most.

Case Background

L3 Communications Integrated Systems LP (“L3Harris”) is a technology company that maintains a code of conduct prohibiting harassment on the basis of religion and other protected characteristics. In 2022, multiple employees alleged that Charles Farlow (“Farlow”) was making offensive remarks toward non-Christian coworkers, in violation of the company's code of conduct.

A human resources representative met with Farlow to counsel him on his conduct. The very next day, however, another employee reported that Farlow had made additional offensive remarks about his non-Christian coworkers. Farlow was placed on suspension pending an investigation. Following that investigation, L3Harris terminated Farlow's employment effective September 8, 2022.

On May 1, 2023, Farlow received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and subsequently filed suit, asserting claims for retaliation and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The court granted in part L3Harris's motion to dismiss, leaving only Farlow's Title VII religious discrimination claim.

The Exhaustion Requirement — and Why It Matters

Before bringing a Title VII discrimination claim in federal court, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (e)(1) (requiring a charge to be filed with the EEOC within 180 or 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, and directing the EEOC to investigate the charge). Critically, courts look to the EEOC charge itself to determine whether a plaintiff has properly exhausted his or her claims.

This exhaustion requirement is not a mere formality, it is a jurisdictional prerequisite that defines the scope of what a plaintiff may litigate in federal court.

What Happened in Discovery

In its Answer to Farlow's Amended Complaint, L3Harris raised the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust, arguing that Farlow's claims exceeded the scope of his EEOC charge. During discovery, L3Harris's counsel requested the charge at least four times. Farlow confirmed during his deposition that the charge was in his possession—yet he never produced it. At the summary judgment stage, L3Harris argued that Farlow's repeated refusal to produce the charge warranted judgment in its favor on the exhaustion defense. The court agreed.

The Court's Reasoning

The court's analysis rested on two key conclusions:

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision reinforces several critical litigation practices for employers facing Title VII claims:

Bottom Line

Farlow is a reminder that the EEOC charge is not just an administrative stepping stone—it is a critical piece of evidence that can make or break a Title VII claim. Employers who diligently assert exhaustion defenses and methodically pursue the charge during discovery put themselves in a powerful position at summary judgment.

Employers seeking more information may contact Sheppard's Labor and Employment team for additional insights and strategies.

Mr Stephen E. Fox Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 333 Hope Street, 48th floor Dallas California 90071 UNITED STATES Fax: 2136201398 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.sheppard.com