National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
E846869
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the time limits for filing employment discrimination claims, distinguishing between discrete acts and continuing violations under Title VII.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T10196695 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan Context triple: [Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., precedentCited, National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan]
-
A.
Railway Express Agency v. New York
Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.
-
B.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is a landmark 1938 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended the practice of federal general common law and required federal courts in diversity cases to apply state substantive law.
-
C.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that established the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields efforts to petition the government from liability under the antitrust laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan Target entity description: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the time limits for filing employment discrimination claims, distinguishing between discrete acts and continuing violations under Title VII.
-
A.
Railway Express Agency v. New York
Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.
-
B.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is a landmark 1938 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended the practice of federal general common law and required federal courts in diversity cases to apply state substantive law.
-
C.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that established the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields efforts to petition the government from liability under the antitrust laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | Title VII charge-filing requirements with the EEOC ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ |
| citation | 536 U.S. 101 ⓘ |
| clarifiedConcept |
discrete discriminatory acts
ⓘ
hostile work environment as a single unlawful employment practice ⓘ limits of the continuing violation doctrine under Title VII ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2002-06-10 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 00-1614 ⓘ |
| filingDeadlineClarified | 180-day or 300-day charge-filing period under Title VII ⓘ |
| holding |
A hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice.
ⓘ
As long as one act contributing to a hostile work environment occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered for liability. ⓘ Discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time-barred, even when related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. ⓘ Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges under Title VII. ⓘ |
| impact |
Guides courts in distinguishing between discrete acts and hostile work environment claims.
ⓘ
Narrowed use of the continuing violation doctrine for discrete employment actions. ⓘ |
| issue |
How the filing period applies to hostile work environment claims under Title VII.
ⓘ
Whether the continuing violation doctrine allows recovery for discrete discriminatory acts occurring outside the statutory filing period. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
ⓘ
continuing violation doctrine ⓘ employment discrimination ⓘ hostile work environment ⓘ statute of limitations ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
linked to:
Clarence Thomas
|
| petitioner |
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
ⓘ
linked to:
Amtrak
|
| relatedConcept |
time-barred claims
ⓘ
unlawful employment practice ⓘ |
| respondent | Abner Morgan, Jr. ⓘ |
| separateOpinionBy |
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice David H. Souter ⓘ
linked to:
David H. Souter
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
linked to:
Stephen G. Breyer
|
| statuteInterpreted |
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)
ⓘ
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| vote | 5-4 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan Description of subject: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the time limits for filing employment discrimination claims, distinguishing between discrete acts and continuing violations under Title VII.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
→
precedentCited
→
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
ⓘ