author: Justice Souter

text:
    CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL
    No. 00-1406.
    Argued February 27, 2002
    Decided June 10, 2002

      SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Stephen M. Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were James D. Holzhauer, Robert P. Davis, and Evan M. Tager.

      Lisa Schiavo Blatt argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Marleigh D. Dover, Matthew Collette, Phillip B. Sklover, Carolyn L. Wheeler, and Robert J. Gregory.

      Samuel R. Bagenstos argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Larry Minsky and Chai R. Feldblum.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine et al. by Craig E. Stewart; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. by Roy T Englert, Jr., Kathryn S. Zecca, Stephen A. Bokat, and Robin S. Conrad; for the Employers Group by Fred W. Alvarez and Christine A. Kendrick; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. by Ann Elizabeth Rees-man, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel; for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. by Anne M. Hayes and M. Reed Hopper; and for the Society for Human Resource Management by Peter J. Petesch and John E. Duvall.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of People with Disabilities et al. by John Townsend Rich, Arlene Mayerson, Daniel B. Kohrman, Ira A. Burnim, and Jennifer Mathis; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Matthew A. Coles, James D. Esseks, Steven R. Shapiro, and Lenora M. Lapidus; for the American Public Health Association et al. by Catherine A. Hanssens and Jon W. Davidson; for the National Council on Disability by Peter Blanck, Diane Kutzko, Mark L. Zaiger, Douglas R. Oelschlaeger, and Sarah J. Gayer; and for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Gary Phelan.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission authorizes refusal to hire an individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health, owing to a disability. The question in this case is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), permits the regulation. We hold that it does.

I

Beginning in 1972, respondent Mario Echazabal worked for independent contractors at an oil refinery owned by petitioner Chevron U. S. A. Inc. Twice he applied for a job directly with Chevron, which offered to hire him if he could pass the company’s physical examination. See 42 U. S. C. § 12112(d)(3) (1994 ed.). Each time, the exam showed liver abnormality or damage, the cause eventually being identified as Hepatitis C, which Chevron’s doctors said would be aggravated by continued exposure to toxins at Chevron’s refinery. In each instance, the company withdrew the offer, and the second time it asked the contractor employing Echazabal either to reassign him to a job without exposure to harmful chemicals or to remove him from the refinery altogether. The contractor laid him off in early 1996.

Echazabal filed suit, ultimately removed to federal court, claiming, among other things, that Chevron violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA or Act) in refusing to hire him, or even to let him continue working in the plant, because of a disability, his liver condition. Chevron defended under a regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) permitting the defense that a worker’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to his health, see 29 CFR § 1630.15(b)(2) (2001). Although two medical witnesses disputed Chevron’s judgment that Echaza-bal’s liver function was impaired and subject to further damage under the job conditions in the refinery, the District Court granted summary judgment for Chevron. It held that Echazabal raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the company acted reasonably in relying on its own doctors’ medical advice, regardless of its accuracy.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked for briefs on a threshold question not raised before, whether the EEOC’s regulation recognizing a threat-to-self defense, ibid., exceeded the scope of permissible rulemaking under the ADA. 226 F. 3d 1063, 1066, n. 3 (2000). The Circuit held that it did and reversed the summary judgment. The court rested its position on the text of the ADA itself in explicitly recognizing an employer’s right to adopt an employment qualification barring anyone whose disability would place others in the workplace at risk, while saying nothing about threats to the disabled employee himself. The majority opinion reasoned that “by specifying only threats to ‘other individuals in the workplace,’ the statute makes it clear that threats to other persons — including the disabled individual himself — are not included within the scope of the [direct threat] defense,” id., at 1066-1067, and it indicated that any such regulation would unreasonably conflict with congressional policy against paternalism in the workplace, id., at 1067-1070. The court went on to reject Chevron’s further argument that Echaza-bal was not “ ‘otherwise qualified’ ” to perform the job, holding that the ability to perform a job without risk to one’s health or safety is not an “ ‘essential function’ ” of the job. Id., at 1070.

The decision conflicted with one from the Eleventh Circuit, Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc., 97 F. 3d 446, 447 (1996), and raised tension with the Seventh Circuit case of Koshinski v. Decatur Foundry, Inc., 177 F. 3d 599, 603 (1999). We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 991 (2001), and now reverse.

II

Section 102 of the ADA, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., prohibits “discrimination] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability ... in regard to” a number of actions by an employer, including “hiring.” 42 U. S. C. § 12112(a). The statutory definition of “discrimination]” covers a number of things an employer might do to block a disabled person from advancing in the workplace, such as “using qualification standards . . . that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability.” § 12112(b)(6). By that same definition, ibid., as well as by separate provision, § 12113(a), the Act creates an affirmative defense for action under a qualification standard “shown to be job-related for the position in question and ... consistent with business necessity.” Such a standard may include “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace,” § 12113(b), if the individual cannot perform the job safely with reasonable accommodation, § 12113(a). By regulation, the EEOC carries the defense one step further, in allowing an employer to screen out a potential worker with a disability not only for risks that he would pose to others in the workplace but for risks on the job to his own health or safety as well: “The term ‘qualification standard’ may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others in the workplace.” 29 CFR § 1680.15(b)(2) (2001).

Chevron relies on the regulation here, since it says a job in the refinery would pose a “direct threat” to Echazabal’s health. In seeking deference to the agency, it argues that nothing in the statute unambiguously precludes such a defense, while the regulation was adopted under authority explicitly delegated by Congress, 42 U. S. C. § 12116, and after notice-and-comment rulemaking. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 227 (2001); Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-844 (1984). Echazabal, on the contrary, argues that as a matter of law the statute precludes the regulation, which he claims would be an unreasonable interpretation even if the agency had leeway to go beyond the literal text.

A

As for the textual bar to any agency action as a matter of law, Echazabal says that Chevron loses on the threshold question whether the statute leaves a gap for the EEOC to fill. See id., at 843-844. Echazabal recognizes the generality of the language providing for a defense when a plaintiff is screened out by “qualification standards” that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity” (and reasonable accommodation would not cure the difficulty posed by employment). 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a). Without more, those provisions would allow an employer to turn away someone whose work would pose a serious risk to himself. That possibility is said to be eliminated, however, by the further specification that “‘qualification standards’ may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.” § 12113(b); see also §12111(3) (defining “direct threat” in terms of risk to others). Echazabal contrasts this provision with an EEOC regulation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 357, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., antedating the ADA, which recognized an employer’s right to consider threats both to other workers and to the threatening employee himself. Because the ADA defense provision recognizes threats only if they extend to another, Echazabal reads the statute to imply as a matter of law that threats to the worker himself cannot count.

The argument follows the reliance of the Ninth Circuit majority on the interpretive canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 65 (2002). The rule is fine when it applies, but this case joins some others in showing when it does not. See, e. g., ibid.; United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States, 532 U. S. 822, 836 (2001); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 703 (1991).

The first strike against the expression-exclusion rule here is right in the text that Echazabal quotes. Congress included the harm-to-others provision as an example of legitimate qualifications that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” These are spacious defensive categories, which seem to give an agency (or in the absence of agency action, a court) a good deal of discretion in setting the limits of permissible qualification standards. That discretion is confirmed, if not magnified, by the provision that “qualification standards” falling within the limits of job relation and business necessity “may include” a veto on those who would directly threaten others in the workplace. Far from supporting Echazabal’s position, the expansive phrasing of “may include” points directly away from the sort of exclusive specification he claims. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 169 (1977); Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, 100 (1941).

Just as statutory language suggesting exclusiveness is missing, so is that essential extrastatutory ingredient of an expression-exclusion demonstration, the series of terms from which an omission bespeaks a negative implication. The canon depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded. E. Crawford, Construction of Statutes 337 (1940) (expressio unius “ ‘properly applies only when in the natural association of ideas in the mind of the reader that which is expressed is so set over by way of strong contrast to that which is omitted that the contrast enforces the affirmative inference’” (quoting State ex rel. Curtis v. De Corps, 134 Ohio St. 295, 299, 16 N. E. 2d 459, 462 (1938))); United States v. Vonn, supra.

Strike two in this case is the failure to identify any such established series, including both threats to others and threats to self, from which Congress appears to have made a deliberate choice to omit the latter item as a signal of the affirmative defense’s scope. The closest Echazabal comes is the EEOC’s rule interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 357, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., a precursor of the ADA. That statute excepts from the definition of a protected “qualified individual with a handicap” anyone who would pose a “direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals,” but, like the later ADA, the Rehabilitation Act says nothing about threats to self that particular employment might pose. 42 U. S. C. § 12113(b). The EEOC nonetheless extended the exception to cover threat-to-self employment, 29 CFR § 1613.702(f) (1990), and Echazabal argues that Congress’s adoption only of the threat-to-others exception in the ADA must have been a deliberate omission of the Rehabilitation Act regulation’s tandem term of threat-to-self, with intent to exclude it.

But two reasons stand in the way of treating the omission as an unequivocal implication of congressional intent. The first is that the EEOC was not the only agency interpreting the Rehabilitation Act, with the consequence that its regulation did not establish a clear, standard pairing of threats to self and others. While the EEOC did amplify upon the text of the Rehabilitation Act exclusion by recognizing threats to self along with threats to others, three other agencies adopting regulations under the Rehabilitation Act did not. See 28 CFR §42.540(0(1) (1990) (Department of Justice), 29 CFR § 32.3 (1990) (Department of Labor), and 45 CFR § 84.3(k)(l) (1990) (Department of Health and Human Services). It would be a stretch, then, to say that there was a standard usage, with its source in agency practice or elsewhere, that connected threats to others so closely to threats to self that leaving out one was like ignoring a twin.

Even if we put aside this variety of administrative expérience, however, and look no further than the EEOC’s Rehabilitation Act regulation pairing self and others, the congressional choice to speak only of threats to others would still be equivocal. Consider what the ADA reference to threats to others might have meant on somewhat different facts. If the Rehabilitation Act had spoken only of “threats to health” and the EEOC regulation had read that to mean threats to self or others, a congressional choice to be more specific in the ADA by listing threats to others but not threats to self would have carried a message. The most probable reading would have been that Congress understood what a failure to specify could lead to and had made a choice to limit the possibilities. The statutory basis for any agency rule-making under the ADA would have been different from its basis under the Rehabilitation Act and would have indicated a difference in the agency’s rulemaking discretion. But these are not the circumstances hére. Instead of making the ADA different from the Rehabilitation Act on the point at issue, Congress used identical language, knowing full well what the EEOC had made of that language under the earlier statute. Did Congress mean to imply that the agency had been wrong in reading the earlier language to allow it to recognize threats to self, or did Congress just assume that the agency was free to do under the ADA what it had already done under the earlier Act’s identical language? There is no way to tell. Omitting the EEOC’s reference to self-harm while using the very language that the EEOC had read as consistent with recognizing self-harm is equivocal at best. No negative inference is possible.

There is even a third strike against applying the expression-exclusion rule here. It is simply that there is no apparent stopping point to the argument that by specifying a threat-to-others defense Congress intended a negative implication about those whose safety could be considered. When Congress specified threats to others in the workplace, for example, could it possibly have meant that an employer could not defend a refiisal to hire when a worker’s disability would threaten others outside the workplace? If Typhoid Mary had come under the ADA, would a meat packer have been defenseless if Mary had sued after being turned away? See 42 U. S. C. § 12113(d). Expressio unius just fails to work here.

B

Since Congress has not spoken exhaustively on threats to a worker’s own health, the agency regulation can claim adherence under the rule in Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, so long as it makes sense of the statutory defense for qualification standards that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a). Chevron’s reasons for calling the regulation reasonable are unsurprising: moral concerns aside, it wishes to avoid time lost to sickness, excessive turnover from medical retirement or death, litigation under state tort law, and the risk of violating the national Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1590, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §651 et seq. Although Eehazabal claims that none of these reasons is legitimate, focusing on the concern with OSHA will be enough to show that the regulation is entitled to survive.

Eehazabal points out that there is no known instance of OSHA enforcement, or even threatened enforcement, against an employer who relied on the ADA to hire a worker willing to accept a risk to himself from his disability on the job. In Echazabal’s mind, this shows that invoking OSHA policy and possible OSHA liability is just a red herring to excuse covert discrimination. But there is another side to this. The text of OSHA itself says its point is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions,” § 651(b), and Congress specifically obligated an employer to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards, that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees,” § 654(a)(1). Although there may be an open question whether an employer would actually be liable under OSHA for hiring an individual who knowingly consented to the particular dangers the job would pose to him, see Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 19, n. 7, there is no denying that the employer would be asking for trouble: his decision to hire would put Congress’s policy in the ADA, a disabled individual’s right to operate on equal terms within the workplace, at loggerheads with the competing policy of OSHA, to ensure the safety of “each” and “every” worker. Courts would, of course, resolve the tension if there were no agency action, but the EEOC’s resolution exemplifies the substantive choices that agencies are expected to make when Congress leaves the intersection of competing objectives both imprecisely marked but subject to the administrative leeway found in 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a).

Nor can the EEOC’s resolution be fairly called unreasonable as allowing the kind of workplace paternalism the ADA was meant to outlaw. It is true that Congress had paternalism in its sights when it passed the ADA, see § 12101(a)(5) (recognizing “overproteetive rules and policies” as a form of discrimination). But the EEOC has taken this to mean that Congress was not aiming at an employer’s refusal to place disabled workers at a specifically demonstrated risk, but was trying to get at refusals to give an even break to classes of disabled people, while claiming to act for their own good in reliance on untested and pretextual stereotypes. Its regulation disallows just this sort of sham protection, through demands for a particularized enquiry into the harms the employee would probably face. The direct threat defense must be “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,” and upon an expressly “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,” reached after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the harm portended. 29 CFR § 1630.2(r) (2001). The EEOC was certainly acting within the reasonable zone when it saw a difference between rejecting workplace paternalism and ignoring specific and documented risks to the employee himself, even if the employee would take his chances for the sake of getting a job.

Finally, our conclusions that some regulation is permissible and this one is reasonable are not open to Echazabal’s objection that they reduce the direct threat provision to “surplusage,” see Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687, 698 (1995). The mere fact that a threat-to-self defense reasonably falls within the general “job related” and “business necessity” standard does not mean that Congress accomplished nothing with its explicit provision for a defense based on threats to others. The provision made a conclusion clear that might otherwise have been fought over in litigation or administrative rule-making. It did not lack a job to do merely because the EEOC might have adopted the same rule later in applying the general defense provisions, nor was its job any less responsible simply because the agency was left with the option to go a step further. A provision can be useful even without congressional attention being indispensable.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       We do not consider the farther issue passed upon by the Ninth Circuit, which held that the respondent is a “ ‘qualified individual’ ” who “can perform the essential functions of the employment position,” 42 U. S. C. §12111(8) (1994 ed.). 226 F. 3d 1063, 1072 (2000). That issue will only resurface if the Circuit concludes that the decision of respondent’s employer to exclude him was not based on the sort of individualized medical enquiry required by the regulation, an issue on which the District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner and which we leave to the Ninth Circuit for initial appellate consideration if warranted.

       Chevron did not dispute for purposes of its summary-judgment motion that Echazabal is “disabled” under the ADA, and Echazabal did not argue that Chevron could have made a ‘“reasonable accommodation.’” App. 184, n. 6.

       In saying that the expansive textual phrases point in the direction of agency leeway we do not mean that the defense provisions place no limit on agency rulemaking. Without deciding whether all safety-related qualification standards must satisfy the ADA's direct-threat standard, see Al-

        bertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U. S. 555, 569-570, n. 15 (1999), we assume that some such regulations are implicitly precluded by the Act’s specification of a direct-threat defense, such as those allowing “indirect” threats of “insignificant” harm. This is so because the definitional and defense provisions describing the defense in terms of “direct” threats of “significant” harm, 42 Uj S. C. §§ 12113(b), 12111(3), are obviously intended to forbid qualifications that screen out by reference to general categories pretextually applied. See infra, at 85-86, and n. 5. Recognizing the “indirect” and “insignificant” would simply reopen the door to pretext by way of defense.

       In fact, we have said that the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, which had previously been the regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, are of “particular significance” in interpreting the Rehabilitation Act because “HEW was the agency responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. § 794,” prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal funds. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U. S. 184, 195 (2002). Unfortunately for Echazabal’s argument, the congruence of the ADA with the HEW regulations does not produce an unequivocal statement of congressional intent.

       Echazabal’s contention that the Act’s legislative history is to the contrary is unpersuasive. Although some of the comments within the legislative history decry paternalism in general terms, see, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, p. 72 (1990) (“It is critical that paternalistic concerns for the disabled person’s own safety not be used to disqualify an otherwise qualified applicant”); ADA Conf. Rep., 136 Cong. Rec. 17377 (1990) (statement of Sen. Kennedy) (“[A]n employer could not use as an excuse for not hiring a person with HIV disease the claim that the employer was simply ‘protecting the individual’ from opportunistic diseases to which the individual might be exposed”), those comments that elaborate actually express the more pointed concern that such justifications are usually pretextual, rooted in generalities and misperceptions about disabilities. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, at 74 (“Generalized fear about risks from the employment environment, such as exacerbation of the disability caused by stress, cannot be used by an employer to disqualify a person with a disability”); S. Rep. No. 101-116, p. 28 (1989) (“It would also be a violation to deny employment to an applicant based on generalized fears about the safety of the applicant.... By definition, such fears are based on averages and group-based predictions. This legislation requires individualized assessments”).
      Similarly, Echazabal points to several of our decisions expressing concern under Title VII, which like the ADA allows employers to defend otherwise discriminatory practices that are “consistent with business necessity,” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(k), with employers adopting rules that exclude women from jobs that are seen as too risky. See, e. g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 335 (1977); Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187, 202 (1991). Those cases, however, are beside the point, as they, like Title VII generally, were concerned with paternalistic judgments based on the broad category of gender, while the EEOC has required that judgments based on the direct threat provision be made on the basis of individualized risk assessments.

       Respect for this distinction does not entail the requirement, as Echaza-bal claims, that qualification standards be “neutral,” stating what the job requires, as distinct from a worker’s disqualifying characteristics. Brief for Respondent 26. It is just as much business necessity for skyscraper contractors to have steelworkers without vertigo as to have well-balanced ones. See 226 F. 3d, at 1074 (Trott, J., dissenting). Reasonableness does not turn on formalism. We have no occasion, however, to try to describe how acutely an employee must exhibit a disqualifying condition before an employer may exclude him from the class of the generally qualified. See Brief for Respondent 31. This is a job for the trial courts in the first instance.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
    No. 01-651.
    Argued April 17, 2002
    Decided June 10, 2002

      Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Sarah L. Reid argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Joseph N. Froehlich and Edward H. Tillinghast III.

      Jeffrey P Minear argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCollum, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Michael Jay Singer, Wendy M. Keats, William Howard Taft IV, James G. Hergen, and John P. Schnitker.

      Craig J. Albert argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lauren K. Kluger

        Mark N. Bravin and Peter Buscemi filed a brief for the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question here is whether a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a “citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state” for the purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(2). We hold that it is.

I

Respondent Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (BVI), an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. In 1998, petitioner Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase Bank, agreed to finance some ventures Traffic Stream had organized to construct and operate toll roads in China, with the parties’ contract to “be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York,” App. 85a. Traffic Stream agreed to “submi[t] to the jurisdiction” of federal courts in Manhattan, and to “waiv[e] any immunity from [their] jurisdiction.” Ibid.

Chase subsequently charged Traffic Stream with defaulting on its obligations. It sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found subject-matter jurisdiction under the alienage diversity statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(2), and granted summary judgment to Chase. When Traffic Stream appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sua sponte raised the question whether Traffic Stream was a citizen or subject of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction. The court relied on its precedent in Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 (1997), in answering that because Traffic Stream was a citizen of an Overseas Territory and not an independent foreign state, jurisdiction was lacking: 251 F. 3d 334, 337 (2001). The judgment of the District Court was reversed, and the case ordered to be remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Ibid. Chase was denied rehearing en banc.

Because the Second Circuit’s decision conflicts with those of other Circuits, see Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd., 181 F. 3d 410, 413 (CA3 1999); Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F. 3d 304, 308 (CA4 1998); Wilson v. Humphreys (Cayman) Ltd., 916 F. 2d 1239, 1242-1243 (CA7 1990), and implicates serious issues of foreign relations, we granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 1074 (2001). We now reverse.

II

Title 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(2) provides district courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” A “corporation of a foreign State is, for purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States, to be deemed, constructively, a citizen or subject of such State.” Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 121 (1882). Cf. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §213 (1986) (“For purposes of international law, a corporation has the nationality of the state under the laws of which the corporation is organized”). In spite of this general rule of corporate citizenship, this case presents two issues about the application of the statute to Traffic Stream: whether Traffic Stream has been incorporated under the laws of a “foreign state” given the BVI’s status as an Overseas Territory, and whether the BVI’s corporate citizens are “citizens or subjects” within the meaning of § 1332(a)(2).

A

The argument that the status of the BVI renders the statute inapplicable begins by assuming that Traffic Stream, organized under BVI law, must be a citizen or subject of the BVI alone. Since the BVI is a British Overseas Territory, unrecognized by the United States Executive Branch as an independent foreign state, it is supposed to follow that for purposes of alienage jurisdiction Traffic Stream is not a citizen or subject of a “foreign state” within the meaning of § 1332(a)(2).

Even on the assumption, however, that a foreign state must be diplomatically recognized by our own Government to qualify as such under the jurisdictional statute (an issue we need not decide here), we have never held that the requisite status as citizen or subject must be held directly from a formally recognized state, as distinct from such a state’s legal dependency. On the contrary, a consideration of the relationships of the BVI and the recognized state of the United Kingdom convinces us that any such distinction would be entirely beside the point of the statute providing alienage jurisdiction.

1

The current BVI Constitution was established when the Crown of the United Kingdom, in the exercise of power granted by the West Indies Act, 1962, c. 19, §5(1), issued the Virgin Islands (Constitution) Order 1976, SI 1976/2145. Under that order, the United Kingdom exercises pervasive authority over the territory. The Constitution provides, for example, that the BVI Government shall include a Governor and Deputy Governor appointed by the Queen to “hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure,” id., pt. II, §3(1), an Executive Council mainly appointed by the Governor on the basis of the popular election for the Legislative Council, §§ 14-15, and a Legislature comprising the Queen and a Legislative Council of mainly popularly elected representatives, §§25-26.

Bills take effect as laws only when approved by the royally appointed Governor or by the Queen acting through a Secretary of State, § 42. The Governor is instructed to withhold assent from any bill that may conflict with the laws of the United Kingdom or is “likely to prejudice the Royal prerogative.” §42(2)(b). The Queen, acting through a Secretary of State, has authority to annul any BVI statute, §43(1), and “[tjhere is reserved to Her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Virgin Islands,” § 71. “[I]f the Legislative Council fails to pass ... a Bill or motion . . . the Governor may, at any time that he thinks fit, . . . declare that such Bill or motion shall have effect as if it had been passed . .. .” §44.

The Crown’s representatives have not slept on their powers, which have recently been exercised to impose laws and international obligations upon the territory, as in the Caribbean Territories (Abolition of Death Penalty for Murder) Order 1991, and the Merchant Shipping (Salvage Convention) (Overseas Territories) Order 1997, the latter of which brought the BVI into compliance with the International Convention on Salvage, 1989. In a very practical sense, then, the statutes that permit incorporation in the BVI, see BVI Companies Act (CAP. 285); BVI International Business Companies Act (CAP. 291), are laws enacted in the exercise of the political authority of the United Kingdom, and it seems fair to regard a BVI company as a citizen or subject of this ultimate political authority. This view of the relationship seems especially reasonable when such a corporation is engaged in an international transaction, since the United Kingdom acts on the BVI’s behalf in the international arena. See 6 Halsbury, Laws of England ¶983, p. 471 (4th ed. 1991) (“Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom is internationally responsible for the external affairs of United Kingdom dependent territories”); see also United Nations Act, 1946, c. 45 (empowering the Crown to bring “His Majesty’s dominions” into compliance with directives of the United Nations Security Council).

2

The Second Circuit nonetheless takes the position that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its territories is “too attenuated” for the United Kingdom to be viewed as a governing authority for purposes of the relationship assumed by § 1332(a)(2). Matimak Trading Co., 118 F. 3d, at 86. This, of course, depends upon the statute’s objective.

Both during and after the Revolution, state courts were notoriously frosty to British creditors trying to collect debts from American citizens, and state legislatures went so far as to hobble British debt collection by statute, despite the specific provision of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that creditors in the courts of either country would “meet with no lawful impediment” to debt collection. Definitive Treaty of Peace, United States-Great Britain, Art. IV, 8 Stat. 82. See Holt, “To Establish Justice”: Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts, 1989 Duke L. J. 1421, 1438-1449. Ultimately, the States’ refusal to honor the treaty became serious enough to prompt protests by the British Secretary of State, particularly when irked by American demands for treaty compliance on the British side. See 31 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, pp. 781-784 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934).

This penchant of the state courts to disrupt international relations and discourage foreign investment led directly to the alienage jurisdiction provided by Article III of the Constitution. See U. S. Const., Art. Ill, §2 (federal jurisdiction “extend[s] to . . . Controversies . . . between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects”). “[T]he proponents of the Constitution ... made it quite clear that the elimination or amelioration of difficulties with credit was the principal reason for having the alienage and diversity jurisdictions, and that it was one of the most important reasons for a federal judiciary.” Holt, supra, at 1473. This is how James Wilson put it during the debates at the Pennsylvania ratification convention:

“Let us suppose the case, that a wicked law is made in some one of the states, enabling a debtor to pay his creditor with the fourth, fifth, or sixth part of the real value of the debt, and this creditor, a foreigner, complains to his prince ... of the injustice that has been done him_ Bound by inclination, as well as duty, to redress the wrong his subject sustains ... [h]e must therefore apply to the United States; the United States must be accountable. ‘My subject has received a flagrant injury: do me justice, or I will do myself justice.’ If the United States are answerable for the injury, ought they not to possess the means of compelling the faulty state to repair it? They ought; and this is what is done here. For now, if complaint is made in consequence of such injustice, Congress can answer, ‘Why did not your subject apply to the General Court...?’” 2 Debates on the Federal Constitution 493 (J. Elliot ed. 1876) (hereinafter Elliot’s Debates).

Wilson emphasized that in order to “extend our manufactures and our commerce” there would need to be a “proper security . . . provided for the regular discharge of contracts. This security cannot be obtained, unless we give the power of deciding upon those contracts to the general government.” Id., at 492. His concerns were echoed by James Madison: “We well know, sir, that foreigners cannot get justice done them in these courts, and this has prevented many wealthy gentlemen from trading or residing among us.” 3 id., at 583. Madison also remarked that alienage jurisdiction was necessary to “avoid controversies with foreign powers” so that a single State’s courts would not “drag the whole community into war.” Id., at 534; see also The Federalist No. 80, p. 536 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (“[A]n unjust sentence against a foreigner [may] be an aggression upon his sovereign” rendering alienage jurisdiction “essential to . . . the security of the public tranquility”).

Thus, the First Congress granted federal courts the alien-age jurisdiction authorized in the Constitution, even while general federal-question jurisdiction was withheld. See Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 11,1 Stat. 78 (providing for jurisdiction where “an alien is a party” and more than $500 in controversy). The language of the statute was amended in 1875 to track Article III by replacing the word “aliens” with “citizens, or subjects,” Act of Mar. 3, 1875,18 Stat. 470, the phrase that remains today. Although there is no need here to decide whether the current drafting provides jurisdiction up to the constitutional hilt, cf. Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454 (1894) (despite similar language, federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 does not extend as far as Article III), there is no doubt that the similarity of § 1332(a)(2) to Article III bespeaks a shared purpose.

The relationship between the BVI’s powers over corporations and the sources of those powers in Crown and Parliament places the United Kingdom well within the range of concern addressed by Article III and § 1332(a)(2). ■ The United Kingdom exercises ultimate authority over the BVI’s statutory law, including its corporate law and the law of corporate charter, and it exercises responsibility for the BVI’s external relations. These exercises of power and responsibility point to just the kind of relationship that the Framers believed would bind sovereigns “by inclination, as well as duty, to redress the wrong[s]” against their nationals, 2 Elliot’s Debates 493 (J. Wilson). See J. Jones, British Nationality Law and Practice 288 (1947) (“It is the practice of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom to protect, as against foreign Powers,... [Corporations owing their existence to the law in force in the United Kingdom and colonies”). Any doubters may consult the United Kingdom’s own filings in this matter and others comparable, which express apprehension that expulsion of corporations like Traffic Stream from federal courts would cloud investment opportunity and raise the sort of threat to “the security of the public tranquility” that the Framers hoped to avoid. See, e.g., Brief for Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as Amicus Curiae; Diplomatic Note No. 13/2000 from British Embassy in Washington, D. C., to U; S. State Dept., Feb. 2, 2000, Lodging 29, p. 1 (available in Clerk of Court’s case file); Diplomatic Note No. 90/2001 from the British Embassy in Washington, D. C., to the U. S. State Dept., Oct. 5, 2002, App. to Motion to File Brief as Amicus Curiae for Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland la.

B

Traffic Stream’s alternative argument is that BVI corporations are not “citizens or subjects” of the United Kingdom. Traffic Stream begins with the old fiction that a corporation is just an association of shareholders, presumed to reside in the place of incorporation, see, e. g., Tugman, 106 U. S., at 120-121, with the result that, for jurisdictional purposes, a suit against the corporation should be understood as a suit against the shareholders, see id., at 121. Traffic Stream proceeds to read the British Nationality Act, 1981, as a declaration by the United Kingdom that BVI residents are not its citizens or subjects, but mere “nationals,” without the rights and privileges of citizens or subjects, such as the right to travel freely within the United Kingdom. See I. Macdonald & N. Blake, Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice in the United Kingdom 130-131 (4th ed. 1995) (describing categories of United Kingdom citizenship). Traffic Stream insists that because it is legally nothing more than a collection of noncitizen individuals, the corporation itself cannot be treated as deserving of access to the courts of the United States under a statute that opens them to foreign citizens and subjects.

The less important flaw in the argument is its reliance on the outdated legal construct of corporations as collections of shareholders linked by contract, see M. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, pp. 69-93 (1992), a view long since replaced by the conception of corporations as independent legal entities, see id., at 93-107. Thus, Traffic Stream’s whole notion of corporate citizenship derived from natural persons is irrelevant to jurisdictional enquiry in the United States today.

But the argument’s more significant weakness is its failure to recognize that jurisdictional analysis under the law of the United States is not ultimately governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. While it is perfectly true that “every independent nation [has the inherent right] to determine for itself... what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 668 (1898), our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of “citizen” and “subject” as those terms are used in § 1882(a)(2). In fact, we have no need even to decide whether Traffic Stream’s reading of the British Nationality Act is wrong, as the United Kingdom says it is, but only whether the status Traffic Stream claims under the Nationality Act would so operate on the law of the United States as to disqualify it from being a citizen or subject under the domestic statute before us here. We think there is nothing disqualifying.

Although the word “citizen” may imply (and in 1789 and 1875 may have implied) the enjoyment of certain basic rights and privileges, see Black’s Law Dictionary 237 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “citizen” as “entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections” of a community), a “subject” is merely “[o]ne who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign’s laws,” id., at 1438. Thus, contrary to Traffic Stream’s view, the text of § 1332(a)(2) has no room for the suggestion that members of a polity, under the authority of a sovereign, fail to qualify as “subjects” merely because they enjoy fewer rights than other members do. For good or ill, many societies afford greater rights to some of its members than others without any suggestion that the less favored ones have ceased to be “citizens or subjects.” And although some persons, like resident aliens, may live within a foreign state without being treated under American law as members of that particular polity, cf. Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 660 (“‘children . . . born in a place . . . then occupied ... by conquest, are still aliens’”), Traffic Stream concedes that BVI citizens are at least “nationals” of the United Kingdom. See Brief for Respondent 25. Given the object of the alien-age statute, as explained earlier, there is no serious question that “nationals” were meant to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, leaving it immaterial for our purposes that the law of the United Kingdom may provide different rights of abode for individuals in the territories.

III

Because our opinion accords with the positions taken by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the BVI, and the United States, the case presents no issue of deference that may be due to the various interested governments. It is enough to hold that the United Kingdom’s retention and exercise of authority over the BVI renders BVI citizens, both natural and juridic, “citizens or subjects” of the United Kingdom under 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

       In 1998, the Government of the United Kingdom announced that its “ ‘Dependent Territories’ ” would, from that point on, be known as “ ‘Overseas Territories.’ ” Apparently the change of name implied nothing more. Lodging, Amended Brief for Government of United .Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as Amicus Curiae in No. 99-10385 (CA5), p. 7, n. 2 (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).

       Ironically, in passing the British Nationality Act, 1981, c. 61, § 36, the United Kingdom identified one goal as “reducing statelessness.”

       Indeed, Congress itself rejected the earlier rule in 1958 when it provided that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1). There has been raised some question as to whether § 1332(c) applies to foreign, as well as domestic, corporations, although those Circuits that have reached the issue are in agreement that § 1332(c) extends to alien corporations. See Danjaq, S. A. v. Pathe Communications Corp., 979 F. 2d 772, 773-774 (CA9 1992); Vareka Investment, N. V. v. American Investment Properties, Inc., 724 F. 2d 907, 909 (CA11 1984); Jerguson v. Blue Dot Investment, Inc., 659 F. 2d 31, 35 (CA5 1981). There is no need for us to weigh in on this point.

       See Brief for Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as Amicus Curiae 12-13.


author:
Justice Thomas
      Justice O’Connor,

text:
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. MORGAN
    No. 00-1614.
    Argued January 9, 2002
    Decided June 10, 2002

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined as to Part II-A. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined, in which Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined as to all but Part I, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to Part I, post, p. 123.

      Roy T Englert, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Melissa B. Rogers.

      Pamela Y. Price argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Howard J. Moore, Jr., and William McNeill III.

      Austin C. Schlick argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Mar-leigh D. Dover, and John C. Hoyle.

         Katherine Y. K. Cheung, Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Stephen A Bokat, and Robin S. Conrad filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Impact Fund et al. by Ellen Lake, Brad Seligman, and Jocelyn D. Larkin; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., by Robert H. Stroup, Elaine R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin, James L. Coitt, and Eric Schnapper; for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Thomas J Henderson, John A. Payton, Gary T. Johnson, Norman Redlich, Barbara R. Arnwine, Dennis Courtland Hayes, Marcia D. Greenberger, Judith L. Lichtman, Marc Stern, and Paula A. Brantner.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Abner Morgan, Jr., sued petitioner National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that he had been subjected to discrete discriminatory and retaliatory acts and had experienced a racially hostile work environment throughout his employment. Section 2000e-5(e)(l) requires that a Title VII plaintiff file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) either 180 or 300 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” We consider whether, and under what circumstances, a Title VII plaintiff may file suit on events that fall outside this statutory time period.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff may sue on claims that would ordinarily be time barred so long as they either are “sufficiently related” to incidents that fall within the statutory period or are part of a systematic policy or practice of discrimination that took place, at least in part, within the limitations period. We reverse in part and affirm in part. We hold that the statute precludes recovery for discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that occur outside the statutory time period. We also hold that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim, including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period, is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability, so long as an act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period. The application of equitable doctrines, however, may either limit or toll the time period within which an employee must file a charge.

I

On February 27, 1995, Abner J. Morgan, Jr., a black male, filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation against Amtrak with the EEOC and cross-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Morgan alleged that during the time period that he worked for Amtrak he was “consistently harassed and disciplined more harshly than other employees on account of his race.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a. The EEOC issued a “Notice of Right to Sue” on July 8, 1996, and Morgan filed this lawsuit on October 2, 1996. While some of the allegedly discriminatory acts about which Morgan complained occurred within 300 days of the time that he filed his charge with the EEOC, many took place prior to that time period. Amtrak filed a motion, arguing, among other things, that it was entitled to summary judgment on all incidents that occurred more than 300 days before the filing of Morgan’s EEOC charge. The District Court granted summary judgment in part to Amtrak, holding that the company could not be liable for conduct occurring before May 3,1994, because that conduct fell outside of the 300-day filing period. The court employed a test established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations, 78 F. 3d 1164 (1996): A “plaintiff may not base [the] suit on conduct that occurred outside the statute of limitations unless it would have been unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to sue before the statute ran on that conduct, as in a case in which the conduct could constitute, or be recognized, as actionable harassment only in the light of events that occurred later, within the period of the statute of limitations.” Id., at 1167. The District Court held that “[because Morgan believed that he was being discriminated against at the time that all of these acts occurred, it would not be unreasonable to expect that Morgan should have filed an EEOC charge on these acts before the limitations period on these claims ran.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a.

Morgan appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, relying on its previous articulation of the continuing violation doctrine, which “allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time barred ‘as long as the untimely incidents represent an ongoing unlawful employment practice.’” 232 F. 3d 1008, 1014 (2000) (quoting Anderson v. Reno, 190 F. 3d 930, 936 (CA9 1999)). Contrary to both the Seventh Circuit’s test, used by the District Court, and a similar test employed by the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held that its precedent “precludes such a notice limitation on the continuing violation doctrine.” 232 F. 3d, at 1015.

In the Ninth Circuit’s view, a plaintiff can establish a continuing violation that allows recovery for claims filed outside of the statutory period in one of two ways. First, a plaintiff may show “a series of related acts one or more of which are within the limitations period.” Ibid. Such a “serial violation is established if the evidence indicates that the alleged acts of discrimination occurring prior to the limitations period are sufficiently related to those occurring within the limitations period.” Ibid. The alleged incidents, however, “cannot be isolated, sporadic, or discrete.” Ibid. Second, a plaintiff may establish a continuing violation if he shows “a systematic policy or practice of discrimination that operated, in part, within the limitations period — a systemic violation.” Id., at 1015-1016.

To survive summary judgment under this test, Morgan had to “raise a genuine issue of disputed fact as to (1) the existence of a continuing violation — be it serial or systemic,” and (2) the continuation of the violation into the limitations period. Id., at 1016. Because Morgan alleged three types of Title VII claims, namely, discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation, the Court of Appeals considered the allegations with respect to each category of claim separately and found that the prelimitations conduct was sufficiently related to the postlimitations conduct to invoke the continuing violation doctrine for all three. Therefore, “[i]n light of the relatedness of the incidents, [the Court of Appeals found] that Morgan ha[d] sufficiently presented a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether a continuing violation existed.” Id., at 1017. Because the District Court should have allowed events occurring in the prelimitations period to be “presented to the jury not merely as background information, but also for purposes of liability,” id., at 1017-1018, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 927 (2001), and now reverse in part and affirm in part.

II

The Courts of Appeals have taken various approaches to the question whether acts that fall outside of the statutory-time period for filing charges set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e) are actionable under Title VII. See n. 3, supra. While the lower courts have offered reasonable, albeit divergent, solutions, none are compelled by the text of the statute. In the context of a request to alter the timely filing requirements of Title VII, this Court has stated that “strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 826 (1980). In Mohasco, the Court rejected arguments that strict adherence to a similar statutory time restriction for filing a charge was “unfair” or that “a less literal reading of the Act would adequately effectuate the policy of deferring to state agencies.” Id., at 824-825. Instead, the Court noted that “[b]y choosing what are obviously quite short deadlines, Congress clearly intended to encourage the prompt processing of all charges of employment discrimination.” Id., at 825. Similarly here, our most salient source for guidance is the statutory text.

Title 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l) is a charge filing provision that “specifies with precision” the prerequisites that a plaintiff must satisfy before filing suit. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 47 (1974). An individual must file a charge within the statutory time period and serve notice upon the person against whom the charge is made. In a State that has an entity with the authority to grant or seek relief with respect to the alleged unlawful practice, an employee who initially files a grievance with that agency must file the charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the employment practice; in all other States, the charge must be filed within 180 days. A claim is time barred if it is not filed within these time limits.

For our purposes, the critical sentence of the charge filing provision is: “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. ” § 2000e-5(e)(l) (emphasis added). The operative terms are “shall,” “after . . . occurred,” and “unlawful employment practice.” “[S]hall” makes the act of filing a charge within the specified time period mandatory. See, e. g., Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35 (1998) (“[T]he mandatory ‘shall,’.. . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”). “[Ojccurred” means that the practice took place or happened in the past. The requirement, therefore, that the charge be filed “after” the practice “occurred” tells us that a litigant has up to 180 or 300 days after the unlawful practice happened to file a charge with the EEOC.

The critical questions, then, are: What constitutes an “unlawful employment practice” and when has that practice “occurred”? Our task is to answer these questions for both discrete discriminatory acts and hostile work environment claims. The answer varies with the practice.

A

We take the easier question first. A discrete retaliatory or discriminatory act “occurred” on the day that it “happened.” A party, therefore, must file a charge within either 180 or 300 days of the date of the act or lose the ability to recover for it.

Morgan argues that the statute does not require the filing of a charge within 180 or 300 days of each discrete act, but that the language requires the filing of a charge within the specified number of days after an “unlawful employment practice.” “Practice,” Morgan contends, connotes an ongoing violation that can endure or recur over a period of time. See Brief for Respondent 25-26. In Morgan’s view, the term “practice” therefore provides a statutory basis for the Ninth Circuit’s continuing violation doctrine. This argument is unavailing, however, given that 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2 explains in great detail the sorts of actions that qualify as “[u]nlawful employment practices” and includes among such practices numerous discrete acts. See, e. g., § 2000e-2(a) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ..There is simply no indication that the term “practice” converts related discrete acts into a single unlawful practice for the purposes of timely filing. Cf. §2000e-6(a) (providing that the Attorney General may bring a civil action in “pattern or practice” cases).

We have repeatedly interpreted the term “practice” to apply to a discrete act or single “occurrence,” even when it has a connection to other acts. For example, in Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229, 234 (1976), an employee asserted that his complaint was timely filed because the date “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred” was the date after the conclusion of a grievance arbitration procedure, rather than the earlier date of his discharge. The discharge, he contended, was “tentative” and “nonfinal” until the grievance and arbitration procedure ended. Not so, the Court concluded, because the discriminatory act occurred on the date of discharge — the date that the parties understood the termination to be final. Id., at 284-235. Similarly, in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986) (per curiam), a pattern-or-practice ease, when considering a discriminatory salary structure, the Court noted that although the salary discrimination began prior to the date that the act was actionable under Title VII, “[e]ach week’s paycheck that delivered] less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII . . . Id., at 395.

This Court has also held that discrete acts that fall within the statutory time period do not make timely acts that fall outside the time period. In United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553 (1977), United forced Evans to resign after she married because of its policy against married female flight attendants. Although Evans failed to file a timely charge following her initial separation, she nonetheless claimed that United was guilty of a present, continuing violation of Title VII because its seniority system failed to give her credit for her prior service once she was rehired. The Court disagreed, concluding that “United was entitled to treat [Evans’ resignation] as lawful after [she] failed to file a charge of discrimination within the” charge filing period then allowed by the statute. Id., at 558. At the same time, however, the Court noted that “[i]t may constitute relevant background evidence in a proceeding in which the status of a current practice is at issue.” Ibid. The emphasis, however, “should not be placed on mere continuity” but on “whether any present violation exist[ed].” Ibid, (emphasis in original).

In Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250 (1980), the Court evaluated the timeliness of an EEOC complaint filed by a professor who argued that he had been denied academic tenure because of his national origin. Following the decision to deny tenure, the employer offered him a “‘terminal’” contract to teach an additional year. Id., at 253. Claiming, in effect, a “ ‘continuing violation,’ ” the professor argued that the time period did not begin to run until his actual termination. Id., at 257. The Court rejected this argument: “Mere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment discrimination.” Ibid. In order for the time period to commence with the discharge, “he should have identified the alleged discriminatory acts that continued until, or occurred at the time of, the actual termination of his employment.” Ibid. He could not use a termination that fell within the limitations period to pull in the time-barred discriminatory act. Nor could a time-barred act justify filing a charge concerning a termination that was not independently discriminatory.

We derive several principles from these cases. First, discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act. The charge, therefore, must be filed within the 180- or 300-day time period after the discrete discriminatory act occurred. The existence of past acts and the employee’s prior knowledge of their occurrence, however, does not bar employees from filing charges about related discrete acts so long as the acts are independently discriminatory and charges addressing those acts are themselves timely filed. Nor does the statute bar an employee from using the prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim.

As we have held, however, this time period for filing a charge is subject to equitable doctrines such as tolling or estoppel. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 393 (1982) (“We hold that filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling”). Cburts may evaluate whether it would be proper to apply such doctrines, although they are to be applied sparingly. See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U. S. 147, 152 (1984) (per curiam) (“Procedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants”).

The Court of Appeals applied the continuing violations doctrine to what it termed “serial violations,” holding that so long as one act falls within the charge filing period, discriminatory and retaliatory acts that are plausibly or sufficiently related to that act may also be considered for the purposes of liability. See 232 F. 3d, at 1015. With respect to this holding, therefore, we reverse.

Discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire are easy to identify. Each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable “unlawful employment practice.” Morgan can only file a charge to cover discrete acts that “occurred” within the appropriate time period. While Morgan alleged that he suffered from numerous discriminatory and retaliatory acts from the date that he was hired through March 3, 1995, the date that he was fired, only incidents that took place within the timely filing period are actionable. Because Morgan first filed his charge with an appropriate state agency, only those acts that occurred 300 days before February 27, 1995, the day that Morgan filed his charge, are actionable. During that time period, Morgan contends that he was wrongfully suspended and charged with a violation of Amtrak’s “Rule L” for insubordination while failing to complete work assigned to him, denied training, and falsely accused of threatening a manager. Id., at 1013. All prior discrete discriminatory acts are untimely filed and no longer actionable.

B

Hostile environment claims are different in kind from discrete acts. Their very nature involves repeated conduct. See 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 348-349 (3d ed. 1996) (hereinafter Lindemann) (“The repeated nature of the harassment or its intensity constitutes evidence that management knew or should have known of its existence”). The “unlawful employment practice” therefore cannot be said to occur on any particular day. It occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 21 (1993) (“As we pointed out in Meritor [Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 67 (1986),] ‘mere utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a[n] employee,’ ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted), does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII”). Such claims are based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.

“We have repeatedly made clear that although [Title VII] mentions specific employment decisions with immediate consequences, the scope of the prohibition ‘is not limited to “economic” or “tangible” discrimination,’ Harris, [510 U. S., at 21] (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, [477 U. S.,] at 64), and that it covers more than ‘terms’ and ‘conditions’ in the narrow contractual sense.” Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 786 (1998) (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 78 (1998)). As the Court stated in Harris, “[t]he phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ [of 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)] evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment, which includes requiring people to work in a discrimi-natorily hostile or abusive environment.” 510 U. S., at 21 (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Meritor, 477 U. S., at 64, in turn quoting Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 707, n. 13 (1978)). “Workplace conduct is not measured in isolation . . . .” Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U. S. 268, 270 (2001) (per curiam). Thus, “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,’ that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment,’ Title VII is violated.” Harris, 510 U. S., at 21 (citations omitted).

In determining whether an actionable hostile work environment claim exists, we look to “all the circumstances,” including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id., at 23. To assess whether a court may, for the purposes of determining liability, review all such conduct, including those acts that occur outside the filing period, we again look to the statute. It provides that a charge must be filed within 180 or 300 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” A hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one “unlawful employment practice.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The timely filing provision only requires that a Title VII plaintiff file a charge within a certain number of days after the unlawful practice happened.. It does not matter, for purposes of the statute, that some of the component acts of the hostile work environment fall outside the statutory time period. Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.

That act need not, however, be the last act. As long as the employer has engaged in enough activity to make out an actionable hostile environment claim, an unlawful employment practice has “occurred,” even if it is still occurring.. Subsequent events, however, may still be part of the one hostile work environment claim and a charge may be filed at a later date and still encompass the whole.

It is precisely because the entire hostile work environment encompasses a single unlawful employment practice that we do not hold, as have some of the Circuits, that the plaintiff may not base a suit on individual acts that occurred outside the statute of limitations unless it would have been unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to sue before the statute ran on such conduct. The statute does not separate individual acts that are part of the hostile environment claim from the whole for the purposes of timely filing and liability. And the statute does not contain a requirement that the employee file a charge prior to 180 or 300 days “after” the single unlawful practice “occurred.” Given, therefore, that the incidents constituting a hostile work environment are part of one unlawful employment practice, the employer may be liable for all acts that are part of this single claim. In order for the charge to be timely, the employee need only file a charge within 180 or 300 days of any act that is part of the hostile work environment.

The following scenarios illustrate our point: (1) Acts on days 1-400 create a hostile work environment. The employee files the charge on day 401. Can the employee recover for that part of the hostile work environment that occurred in the first 100 days? (2) Acts contribute to a hostile environment on days 1-100 and on day 401, but there are no acts between days 101-400. Can the act occurring on day 401 pull the other acts in for the purposes of liability? In truth, all other things being equal, there is little difference between the two scenarios as a hostile environment constitutes one “unlawful employment practice” and it does not matter whether nothing occurred within the intervening 301 days so long as each act is part of the whole. Nor, if sufficient activity occurred by day 100 to make out a claim, does it matter that the employee knows on that day that an actionable claim happened; on day 401 all incidents are still part of the same claim. On the other hand, if an act on day 401 had no relation to the acts between days 1-100, or for some other reason, such as certain intervening action by the employer, was no longer part of the same hostile environment claim, then the employee cannot recover for the previous acts, at least not by reference to the day 401 act.

Our conclusion with respect to the incidents that may be considered for the purposes of liability is reinforced by the fact that the statute in no way bars a plaintiff from recovering damages for that portion of the hostile environment that falls outside the period for filing a timely charge. Morgan correctly notes that the timeliness requirement does not dictate the amount of recoverable damages. It is but one in a series of provisions requiring that the parties take action within specified time periods, see, e. g., §§2000e-5(b), (c), (d), none of which function as specific limitations on damages.

Explicit limitations on damages are found elsewhere in the statute. Section 1981a(b)(3), for example, details specific limitations on compensatory and punitive damages. Likewise, § 2000e-5(g)(l) allows for recovery of backpay liability for up to two years prior to the filing of the charge. If Congress intended to limit liability to conduct occurring in the period within which the party must file the charge, it seems unlikely that Congress would have allowed recovery for two years of backpay. And the fact that Congress expressly limited the amount of recoverable damages elsewhere to a particular time period indicates that the timely filing provision was not meant to serve as a specific limitation either on damages or the conduct that may be considered for the purposes of one actionable hostile work environment claim.

It also makes little sense to limit the assessment of liability in a hostile work environment claim to the conduct that falls within the 180- or 300-day period given that this time period varies based on whether the violation occurs in a State or political subdivision that has an agency with authority to grant or seek relief. It is important to remember that the statute requires that a Title VII plaintiff must wait 60 days after proceedings have commenced under state or local law to file a charge with the EEOC, unless such proceedings have earlier terminated. §2000e-5(c). In such circumstances, however, the charge must still be filed within 300 days of the occurrence. See Mohasco, 447 U. S., at 825-826. The extended time period for parties who first file such charges in a State or locality ensures that employees are neither time barred from later filing their charges with the EEOC nor dissuaded from first filing with a state agency. See id., at 821 (“The history identifies only one reason for treating workers in deferral States differently from workers in other States: to give state agencies an opportunity to redress the evil at which the federal legislation was aimed, and to avoid federal intervention unless its need was demonstrated”). Surely, therefore, we cannot import such a limiting principle into the provision where its effect would be to make the reviewable time period for liability dependent upon whether an employee lives in a State that has its own remedial scheme.

Simply put, § 2000e-5(e)(l) is a provision specifying when a charge is timely filed and only has the consequence of limiting liability because filing a timely charge is a prerequisite to having an actionable claim. A court’s task is to determine whether the acts about which an employee complains are part of the same actionable hostile work environment practice, and if so, whether any act falls within the statutory time period.

With respect to Morgan’s hostile environment claim, the Court of Appeals concluded that “the pre- and post-limitations period incidents involve[d] the same type of employment actions, occurred relatively frequently, and were perpetrated by the same managers.” 232 F. 3d, at 1017. To support his claims of a hostile environment, Morgan presented evidence from a number of other employees that managers made racial jokes, performed racially derogatory acts, made negative comments regarding the capacity of blacks to be supervisors, and used various racial epithets. Id., at 1013. Although many of the acts upon which his claim depends occurred outside the 300 day filing period, we cannot say that they are not part of the same actionable hostile environment claim. On this point, we affirm.

C

Our holding does not leave employers defenseless against employees who bring hostile work environment claims that extend over long periods of time. Employers have recourse when a plaintiff unreasonably delays filing a charge. As noted in Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385 (1982), the filing period is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a Title VII suit. Rather, it is a requirement subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling “when equity so requires.” Id., at 398. These equitable doctrines allow us to honor Title VII’s remedial purpose “without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement, to give prompt notice to the employer.” Ibid.

This Court previously noted that despite the procedural protections of the statute “a defendant in a Title VII enforcement action might still be significantly handicapped in making his defense because of an inordinate EEOC delay in filing the action after exhausting its conciliation efforts.” Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 373 (1977). The same is true when the delay is caused by the employee, rather than by the EEOC. Cf. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 424 (1975) (“[A] party may not be ‘entitled’ to relief if its conduct of the cause has improperly and substantially prejudiced the other party”). In such cases, the federal courts have the discretionary power to “to locate ‘a just result’ in light of the circumstances peculiar to the case.” Id., at 424-425.

In addition to other equitable defenses, therefore, an employer may raise a laches defense, which bars a plaintiff from maintaining a suit if he unreasonably delays in filing a suit and as a result harms the defendant. This defense “‘requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense.’ ” Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U. S. 673, 687 (1995) (quoting Costello v. United States, 365 U. S. 265, 282, (1961)). We do not address questions here such as “how — and how much — prejudice must be shown” or “what consequences follow if laches is established.” 2 Lindemann 1496-1500. We observe only that employers may raise various defenses in the face of unreasonable and prejudicial delay.

Ill

We conclude that a Title VII plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file his charge within the appropriate time period — 180 or 300 days — set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). A charge alleging a hostile work environment claim, however, will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period. Neither holding, however, precludes a court from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy join as to all but Part I, and with whom Justice Breyer joins as to Part I, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join Part II-A of the Court’s opinion because I agree that Title VII suits based on discrete discriminatory acts are time barred when the plaintiff fails to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the 180- or 300-day time period designated in the statute. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). I dissent from the remainder of the Court’s opinion, however, because I believe a similar restriction applies to all types of Title VII suits, including those based on a claim that a plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment.

I .

The Court today holds that, for discrete discriminatory acts, § 2000e-5(e)(l) serves as a form of statute of limitations, barring recovery for actions that take place outside the charge-filing period. The Court acknowledges, however, that this limitations period may be adjusted by equitable doctrines. See ante, at 114, n. 7; see also Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 393 (1982) (“We hold that filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling”). Like the Court, I see no need to resolve fully the application of the discovery rule to claims based on discrete discriminatory acts. See ante, at 114, n. 7. I believe, however, that some version of the discovery rule applies to discrete-act claims. See 2 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 1349 (3d ed. 1996) (“Although [Supreme Court precedents] seem to establish a relatively simple ‘notice’ rule as to when discrimination ‘occurs’ (so as to start the running of the charge-filing period), courts continue to disagree on what the notice must be of” (emphasis in original)). In my view, therefore, the charge-filing period precludes recovery based on discrete actions that occurred more than 180 or 300 days after the employee had, or should have had, notice of the discriminatory act.

II

Unlike the Court, I would hold that § 2000e-5(e)(l) serves as a limitations period for all actions brought under Title VII, including those alleging discrimination by being subjected to a hostile working environment. Section 2000e-5(e)(1) provides that a plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC , within 180 or 300 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” It draws no distinction between claims based on discrete acts and claims based on hostile work environments. If a plaintiff fails to file a charge within that time period, liability may not be assessed, and damages must not be awarded, for that part of the hostile environment that occurred outside the charge-filing period.

The Court’s conclusion to the contrary is based on a characterization of hostile environment discrimination as composing a single claim based on conduct potentially spanning several years. See ante, at 117. I agree with this characterization. I disagree, however, with the Court’s conclusion that, because of the cumulative nature of the violation, if any conduct forming part of the violation occurs within the charge-filing period, liability can be proved and damages can be collected for the entire hostile environment. Although a hostile environment claim is, by its nature, a general atmosphere of discrimination not completely reducible to particular discriminatory acts, each day the worker is exposed to the hostile environment may still be treated as a separate “occurrence,” and claims based on some of those occurrences forfeited. In other words, a hostile environment is a form of discrimination that occurs every day; somó of those daily occurrences may be time barred, while others are not.

The Court’s treatment of hostile environment claims as constituting a single occurrence leads to results that contradict the policies behind 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). Consider an employee who has been subjected to a hostile work environment for 10 years. Under the Court’s approach, such an employee may, subject only to the uncertain restrictions of equity, see ante, at 122, sleep on his or her rights for a decade, bringing suit only in year 11 based in part on actions for which a charge could, and should, have been filed many years previously in accordance with the statutory mandate. § 2000e-5(e)(l) (“A charge under this section shall be filed [within 180 or 300 days] after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred”). Allowing suits based on such remote actions raises all of the problems that statutes of limitations and other similar time limitations are designed to address:

“Statutes of limitation... promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.” Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U. S. 342, 348-349 (1944).

Although the statute’s 2-year limitation on backpay partially addresses these concerns, § 2000e-5(g)(l), under the Court’s view, liability may still be assessed and other sorts of damages (such as damages for pain and suffering) awarded based on long-past occurrences. An employer asked to defend such stale actions, when a suit challenging them could have been brought in a much more timely manner, may rightly complain of precisely this sort of unjust treatment.

The Court is correct that nothing in § 2000e-5(e)(l) can be read as imposing a cap on damages. But reading §20Q0e-5(e)(1) to require that a plaintiff bring an EEOC charge within 180 or 300 days of the time individual incidents constituting a hostile work environment occur or lose the ability to bring suit based on those incidents is not equivalent to transforming it into a damages cap. The limitation is one on liability. The restriction on damages for occurrences too far in the past follows only as an obvious consequence.

Nor, as the Court claims, would reading § 2000e-5(e)(l) as limiting hostile environment claims conflict with Title VII’s allowance of backpay liability for a period of up to two years prior to a charge’s filing. §2000e-5(g)(l). Because of the potential adjustments to the charge-filing period based on equitable doctrines, two years of backpay will sometimes be available even under my view. For example, two years of backpay may be available where an employee failed to file a timely charge with the EEOC because his employer deceived him in order to conceal the existence of a discrimination claim.

The Court also argues that it makes “little sense” to base relief on the charge-filing period, since that period varies depending on whether the State or political subdivision where the violation occurs has designated an agency to deal with such claims. See ante, at 119. The Court concludes that “[sjurely ... we cannot import such a limiting principle .. . where its effect would be to make the reviewable time period for liability dependent upon whether an employee lives in a State that has its own remedial scheme.” Ante, at 120. But this is precisely the principle the Court has adopted for discrete discriminatory acts — depending on where a plaintiff lives, the time period changes as to which discrete discriminatory actions may be reviewed. The justification for the variation is the same for discrete discriminatory acts as it is for claims based on hostile work environments. The longer time period is intended to give States and other political subdivisions time to review claims themselves, if they have a mechanism for doing so. The same rationale applies to review of the daily occurrences that make up a part of a hostile environment claim.

My approach is also consistent with that taken by the Court in other contexts. When describing an ongoing antitrust violation, for instance, we have stated:

“[E]ach overt act that is part of the violation and that injures the plaintiff... starts the statutory [limitations] period running again, regardless of the plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged illegality at much earlier times. . , . But the commission of a separate new overt act generally does not permit the plaintiff to recover for the injury caused by old overt acts outside the limitations period.” Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179, 189 (1997) (citations omitted).

Similarly, in actions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et seq., concerning a pattern of racketeering activity, we rejected a rule that would have allowed plaintiffs to recover for all of the acts that made up the pattern so long as at least one occurred within the limitations period. In doing so, we endorsed the rule of several Circuits that, although “commission of a separable, new predicate act within [the] limitations period permits a plaintiff to recover for the additional damages caused by that act. . . the plaintiff cannot use an independent, new predicate act as a bootstrap to recover for injuries caused by other earlier predicate acts that took place outside the limitations period.” 521 U. S., at 190; but cf. Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 554, n. 2, 557 (2000) (reserving the question of whether the injury discovery rule applies in civil RICO and, by extension, Clayton Act cases). The Court today allows precisely this sort of bootstrapping in the Title VII context; plaintiffs may recover for exposure to a hostile environment whose time has long passed simply because the hostile environment has continued into the charge-filing period.

I would, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in its entirety.

       Such discrimination, he alleges, began when the company hired him in August 1990 as an electrician helper, rather than as an electrician. Subsequent alleged racially motivated discriminatory acts included a termination for refusing to follow orders, Amtrak’s refusal to allow him to participate in an apprenticeship program, numerous “written counselings” for absenteeism, as well as the use of racial epithets against him by his managers.

       The District Court denied summary judgment to Amtrak with respect to those claims it held were timely filed. The remaining claims then proceeded to trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Amtrak.

       The Fifth Circuit employs a multifactor test, which, among other things, takes into account: (1) whether the alleged acts involve the same type of discrimination; (2) whether the incidents are recurring or independent and isolated events; and (3) whether the earlier acts have sufficient permanency to trigger the employee’s awareness of and duty to challenge the alleged violation. See Berry v. Board of Supervisors, 715 F. 2d 971, 981 (1983).

       The Court there considered both the 300-day time limit of 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e) and the requirement of §2000e-5(c) that, in the case of an unlawful employment practice that occurs in a State that prohibits such practices, no charge may be filed with the EEOC before the expiration of 60 days after proceedings have been commenced in the appropriate state agency unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated.

       “In the absence of an indication to the contrary, words in a statute are assumed to bear their ‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.’” Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 207 (1997) (quoting Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U. S. 380, 388 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1561 (1993) defines “occur” as “to present itself: come to pass: take place: happen.” See also Black’s Law Dictionary 1080 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “[o]ccur” as “[t]o happen;... to take place; to arise”).

       Morgan also argues that the EEOC’s discussion of continuing violations in its Compliance Manual, which provides that certain serial violations and systemic violations constitute continuing violations that allow relief for untimely events, as well as the positions the EEOC has taken in prior briefs, warrant deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural

        Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). Brief for Respondent 26-32. But we have held that the EEOC’s interpretive guidelines do not receive Chevron deference. See EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 257 (1991). Such interpretations are “ ‘entitled to respect’ under our decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944), but only to the extent that those interpretations have the ‘power to persuade.’” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 587 (2000).

       Because the Court of Appeals held that the “discrete acts” were actionable as part of a continuing violation, there was no need for it to further contemplate when the time period began to run for each act. The District Court noted that “Morgan believed that he was being discriminated against at the time that all of these acts occurred. . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. There may be circumstances where it will be difficult to determine when the time period should begin to run. One issue that may arise in such circumstances is whether the time begins to run when the injury occurs as opposed to when the injury reasonably should have been discovered. But this case presents no occasion to resolve that issue.

       The final alleged discriminatory act, he contends, led to his termination on March 3,1995. Morgan alleges that after the manager reported that Morgan had threatened him, he was ordered into a supervisor’s office. Then, after he asked for union representation or the presence of a co-worker as a witness, the supervisor denied both, ordered everyone out of the office, and yelled at Morgan to get his “black ass” into the office. Morgan refused and went home. He was subsequently suspended and charged with violations of two company rules and, following an investigatory hearing, terminated.

       We have no occasion here to consider the timely filing question with respect to “pattern-or-practice” claims brought by private litigants as none are at issue here.

       Hostile work environment claims based on racial harassment are reviewed under the same standard as those based on sexual harassment. See Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 786-787, and n. 1 (1998); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 66-67 (1986).

       Amtrak argues that recovery for conduct taking place outside the time period for filing a timely charge should be available only in hostile environment cases where the plaintiff reasonably did not know such conduct was discriminatory or where the discriminatory nature of such conduct is recognized as discriminatory only in light of later events. See Brief for Petitioner 38. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit adopted this approach in Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations, 78 F. 3d 1164 (1996). See supra, at 106. Although we reject the test proposed by petitioner, other avenues of relief are available to employers. See infra, at 121-122.

       The same concern is not implicated with discrete acts given that, unlike hostile work environment claims, liability there does not depend upon proof of repeated conduct extending over a period of time.

       We make no judgment, however, on the merits of Morgan’s claim.

       Nor do we have occasion to consider whether the laches defense may be asserted against the EEOC, even though traditionally the doctrine may not be applied against the sovereign. We note, however, that in Occidental there seemed to be general agreement that courts can provide relief to defendants against inordinate delay by the EEOC. See Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 373 (1977). Cf. id., at 383 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting in part) (“Since here the suit is to recover back-pay for an individual that could have brought her own suit, it is impossible to think that the EEOC was suing in the sovereign capacity of the United States”).

      This case provides no occasion to determine whether the discovery rule operates in the context of hostile work environment claims.